Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Bill (Bridgwater Extension).

Read a Second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS.

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:—

Aberystwyth Corporation.
Aldridge Urban District Council.
Bangor Corporation.
Blackpool Improvement.
Bournemouth Gas and Water.
Bradford Extension.
Brighton Corporation (Transport).
Brixham Gas and Electricity.
Canterbury Gas and Water.
Clacton Urban District Council.
Cowes Urban District Council.
Crewe Corporation.
Derwent Valley Water Board.
Glamorgan County Council.
Green Belt (London and Home Counties).
Guildford Corporation.
Irwell Valley Water Board.
Lee Conservancy Catchment Board.
London and North Eastern Railway.
London County Council (Tunnel and Improvements).
London Midland and Scottish Railway.
London Passenger Transport Board.
Middlesex County Council (Sewerage).
Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks.
Ossett Corporation.
Radcliffe Farnworth and District Gas.
Redcar Corporation.
Romford Gas.
Southern Railway.
Swinton and Pendlebury Corporation.
Workington Corporation.

PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS].

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for

Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely:—

Adelphi Estate.
Blackburn Corporation.
Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway.
Bristol Corporation.
Chichester Corporation.
Dudley Extension.
Electric Supply Corporation.
Gateshead and District Tramways and Trolley Vehicles.
Gateshead Corporation.
Lancashire County Council (Rivers Board and General Powers).
Lee Conservancy.
London County Council (General Powers).
Manchester Corporation.
Middlesex County Council (General Powers).
Middlesex Hospital.
Nottingham Corporation.
Plymouth Extension.
Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water.
Royal Sheffield Infirmary and Hospital.
St. Bartholomew's Hospital.
Salford Corporation.
Saltburn and Marske-by-the-Sea Urban District Council.
Sheffield Gas.
Shropshire Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power (Consolidation).
Stockton-on-Tees Corporation.
Wakefield Corporation.
Warrington Corporation Water.
Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock.
West Surrey Water.
West Thurrock Estate.
West Yorkshire Gas Distribution.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE AND DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

Wing-Commander James: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the absence of proportionate retiring pensions in the


Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service, such as exist in the fighting Services, results in the retention, to enable them to reach pensionable age, of persons who have shown themselves to be unsuitable for the highest posts, thereby, inter alia, blocking promotion; and whether he will take steps to remedy this state of affairs?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I cannot accept all the implications in my hon. and gallant Friend's question. Moreover, I would point out that the members of the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service are now subject to the Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) Act, 1929, with the exception of six officers who, in virtue of Section 2 of that Act, gave notice of their desire to remain subject to the provisions of the Diplomatic Salaries, etc., Act, 1869. The Act of 1929 applies to members of the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service the provisions of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1935, and they are thus for superannuation purposes in exactly the same position as other Civil servants of the Crown.

Mr. Leach: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is more of a Government Front Bench problem than a Foreign Office one?

Wing-Commander James: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many applications to retire in order to make room for younger men have been received during the past five years from members over 40 years of age in the services administered by his Department?

Mr. Eden: No application to retire for the reason stated by my hon. and gallant Friend has been received during the period in question. It must be remembered that save in exceptional circumstances members of these services are not eligible for a pension until they have reached the age of 60.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of those European countries where His Majesty's Government are represented by Roman Catholics in the posts of Ambassador, Minister, First Secretary or Councillor?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. Members of the Diplomatic Service are not required at any time to state the Church to which they belong, and any such inquiry would, in

my view, imply a reversion to the standpoint of religious discrimination happily abandoned in this country for over 100 years.

Colonel Wedgwood: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in view of the pro-Franco propaganda of the Roman Church and the anti-British propaganda of the Roman State, it is desirable to have this divided allegiance in so many European capitals?

Mr. Eden: I must take exception to that supplementary question if there is any implication of the service of members of the Diplomatic Corps. Whatever their religious convictions may be they all render equally loyal and disinterested service to the State.

Mr. Thurtle: May I ask whether at the time of entering into the Diplomatic Service any inquiry is made into the religious beliefs of the persons concerned?

Mr. Eden: My answer shows that there is not.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Can the right hon. Gentleman recall any instance in the story of the Foreign Office of any charge being made against the character and loyalty of Catholic Ambassadors and Ministers abroad?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQI OILFIELDS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the scale of the present royalties paid to the Government of Iraq by the company developing the Mosul oilfields; and particulars of the latest report received of the commercial development that has taken place in the Mosul oilfields?

Mr. Eden: I assume the hon. Member to refer to the oilfields covered by the concessions of the Iraq Petroleum Company and the British Oil Development Company. In 1936 the total amount receivable by the Iraqi Government from the Iraq Petroleum Company was £776,980 gold as royalty payment, while from the British Oil Development Company the Iraqi Government received £200,000 gold as dead rent. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that the output of crude oil is about 4,000,000 tons a year.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether exploration is still proceeding?

Mr. Eden: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to the negotiations on the question of Customs control in Shanghai?

Captain Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement with regard to the position of the Chinese maritime Customs and the tenancy of the posts held by British subjects?

Mr. Eden: I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 8th December. Having received information that the Japanese authorities in Shanghai had not as yet received their instructions in this matter from their Government in Tokyo, I instructed His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo to communicate further with the Japanese Government on this point, and I learn that they have promised that the despatch of instructions shall be expedited. So far as I am aware, there has been no change in the tenancy of posts in the service held by British subjects.

Mr. Henderson: In the event of these negotiations being concluded during the Recess, will the Government publish a full statement?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member can be very sure that during the Recess and while Parliament is sitting the Government will anxiously watch the situation and do all that is possible to protect British interests.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that pending the result of these negotiations the Customs at Shanghai are de facto under the control of the Japanese?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I understand not.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the

possible extension of Japanese military operations to the province of Kwangtung; and what steps are being taken to protect our traditional trade interests in South China?

Mr. Eden: The situation with regard to a possible spread of hostilities to the province of Kwangtung is being carefully watched, but I have no information that I can properly give to the House. I can assure my hon. Friend that all possible protection is being and will be afforded to our trade interests in South China.

Mr. Noel-Baker: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to ensure the continuance of British trade if there is a Japanese ring round Canton?

Mr. Eden: There is no such ring.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Japanese authorities in the occupied area of the International Settlement in Shanghai promised to relax the restrictions on access to British-owned property as from 15th December, and that those regulations which still remain in force are of so onerous a character as to deprive the promised access of any practical value; and whether he will take immediate steps to secure the cancellation of the regulations referred to?

Mr. Eden: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part of the question is that while the position shows some slight improvement it is still unsatisfactory. The British authorities at Shanghai have spared no efforts to secure a relaxation of the conditions imposed but so far without success; in the circumstances and in view of the importance which His Majesty's Government attach to this matter, I am instructing His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo to make representations to the Japanese Government on the subject.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British subjects who have been killed by Japanese forces in the Far East since the present hostilities between China and Japan commenced; the number of apologies received from the Japanese Government; and what action the Government have taken in each case?

Mr. Eden: The following British subjects have been killed by the action of Japanese forces:
Private MacGowan, on 24th October, by Japanese machine gunning from the air at Shanghai.
Privates O'Toole, Mellon and Howard, on 29th October by Japanese shells bursting inside the defence perimetre at Shanghai.
Able-Seaman Lonergan, a sick bay attendant, by shell fire on His Majesty's ship "Ladybird" by Japanese shore batteries at Wuhu.
In addition, Mr. Pembroke Stephens, the correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph" was killed by machine-gun bullets, while watching hostilities in the neighbourhood of Shanghai on or about 15th November.
Of these, the correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph" was killed during an actual engagement between Chinese and Japanese forces in circumstances which did not seem to render any action by His Majesty's Government possible. In the other cases the Japanese Government offered an apology and compensation either in anticipation of any action by His Majesty's Government or in response to a request, which was coupled, in two cases where the circumstances warranted it, with a request for disciplinary action against those responsible and for measures to be taken to prevent any repetition. Assurances in this respect have been received, but His Majesty's Government are awaiting a further communication, as the House is aware, from the Japanese in connection with the latest incident.

Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say whether any of these events, other than the recent ones, have been deliberate actions on the part of the Japanese authorities? Have the Japanese authorities, in any of these cases, apart from what has happened during the last few weeks, deliberately attacked British subjects?

Mr. Gallacher: Is it possible for the Foreign Secretary to get the Japanese to supply him with a number of apologies in advance?

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what will be the amount of compensation?

Mr. Eden: I understand that is at present being discussed. It is a question of the assessment of the amounts, and the relatives to whom compensation should be paid.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned disciplinary action. Has disciplinary action been taken in any of these cases?

Mr. Eden: I understand that it has. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to ask another question or to let me tell him the results of my inquiries.

Mr. Thorne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if the German War Minister had been as reasonable as— [Interruption.]

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information concerning Japanese naval movements in waters adjacent to Hong Kong?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that Japanese naval movements in the vicinity referred to are being carefully watched, but I have no information on the subject that I could usefully give to the House at present.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the First Lord satisfied that the British Naval forces in Chinese waters are sufficient in view of any possibilities which may arise?

Captain A. Graham: asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the critical condition in the Far East, he will immediately strengthen His Majesty's China Fleet?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on Wednesday last in reply to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher).

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: Are not our primary commitments at sea those under the Nyon Agreement?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the return to Paris of M.


Delbos from his Central European tour, it is proposed to have further conversations between His Majesty's Government and the French Government?

Mr. Eden: No arrangements for further conversations have been made, but exchanges of view will, of course, proceed as usual through the diplomatic channel.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND (STABILISATION LOAN).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the authority upon which the Council of Foreign Bondholders entered into negotiations with the Polish Government with regard to the service of the bonds of the Republic of Poland 7 per cent. Stabilisation Loan Sterling Issue and proceeded to recommend to the bondholders acceptance of a reduction of interest rate and a modification of sinking fund provisions?

Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 4 of the Corporation of Foreign Bondholders Act, 1898, in which the objects and scope of the corporation are set out.

Sir J. Mellor: As the bondholders have no control over the activities of the Council of Foreign Bondholders, can the Council be truly said to represent the bondholders, and as the Council is not responsible either to the Government or to the bondholders, does the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that the activities of the Council should prejudice the rights of the bondholders by entering into these negotiations?

Mr. Eden: I do not think I can accept the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The Council has done a great deal of valuable work at different times for foreign bondholders, and I have here the text of the Act to which I referred, in which my hon. Friend will find the authority fully set out.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Sir Adrian Baillie: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the continued detention by General Franco of Mr. Peter Caddy, a British journalist; whether representations have been made

to secure his release; and what is the present position in this matter?

Mr. Eden: As I indicated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kings Norton (Mr. Cartland) on 6th December, His Majesty's Ambassador at Hendaye has protested to the Salamanca authorities against the prolonged delay in bringing Mr. Caddy to trial, and has represented to them that the trial should take place forthwith and that adequate facilities should be afforded for the prisoner's defence. As it appears that Mr. Caddy has still not been brought to trial, His Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed to make clear to the Salamanca authorities that His Majesty's Government take a serious view of this case, emphasising the request that the trial should take place forthwith, and that adequate facilities should be afforded for the prisoner's defence.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that the policy of the Government in requiring a passport declaration from British subjects proceeding to Spain does not preclude Members of this House from freely expressing their views when in Spain as to the conflict and the plan of non-intervention?

Mr. Eden: The question of whether expressions of opinion with regard to the conflict in Spain by British subjects visiting that country constitute a violation of the undertakng signed by them before leaving this country would seem to depend entirely on the nature of the expression of opinion.

Mr. Mander: Is it possible to obtain unanimity among Ministers on this point, in view of the different attitude taken up by the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty?

Mr. Eden: I feel sure that my answer will achieve unanimity.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether this declaration was signed by Sir Robert Hodgson before he went to Spain?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider withdrawing this declaration?

Mr. De la Bère: Why does not the hon. Member have a look at the new clock?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (COLONIES).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the 1,140,000 square miles of territory taken from Germany as a result of the War were allocated; and what was Great Britain's portion of the territory?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member will appreciate that his question refers to areas many of which are remote and not accurately surveyed. The task of answering it is, therefore, one of considerable complexity and will involve much labour. If he desires to press it, perhaps he will kindly put it down again after the Recess, when I will endeavour to get him the information for which he asks.

Mr. Thorne: In consequence of the propaganda which is being carried on by Germany, may I ask whether the German authorities have made any demand upon those countries who have shared in the 1,140,000 square miles?

Mr. Eden: If my recollection is right, the public declarations of German statesmen is that they want their territories back irrespective of whom they may now belong to.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this area of 1,140,000 square miles is mandated territory under the League of Nations and that it is not in the power of any nation to give it away?

Mr. Eden: It is administered under mandate.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Mr. Day: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of cinematograph films that have been made in which Government ships or material have been used or Naval assistance given during the three years ending at the last convenient date?

Mr. Cooper: During the past three years considerable Naval facilities have been given for four cinematograph films. In addition, some minor facilities have frequently been afforded.

Mr. Day: Do the Admiralty receive any payment for the use of these ships or materials?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir. In the normal course, if a firm is supplied with facilities payment is made, but on occasions when films are produced in collaboration with the Admiralty which, for propaganda purposes, are valuable to the Admiralty, facilities are afforded free?

Mr. Day: Is this a fixed payment, or is it a percentage of the profits of the film?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir, it is not a percentage.

CAPITAL SHIPS (REPAIRS AND REFITTING).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many capital ships are at present unable to go to sea; and how long it will be before each of them is ready for service?

Mr. Cooper: Two battleships and one battle-cruiser are undergoing large repairs. The date of their readiness for sea depends on the progress of the work and the need for their services. In addition, two battleships are refitting, both of which will be ready for sea in the near future.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not possible to arrange these refits in such a manner that one-fifth of our capital ship force shall not be out of action at the same time?

Mr. Cooper: If it were arranged in a different manner, obviously it would take us very much longer to complete the refits.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I press the question, and ask the First Lord whether it is not extremely undesirable that one-fifth of our capital ship force should be out of action at the same time?

Commander Marsden: Before my right hon. Friend replies, are we to understand that one-half of that number is ready to proceed to sea very quickly in case of emergency?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir. Two battleships undergoing refits will be ready for sea in the very near future. The three undergoing substantial repairs will not be ready for some time. I realise the force of the


hon. and gallant Member's argument, but equally he will understand that if you spread repairs over a longer period, and, instead of doing all three at one time, do one at a time, it will take three times as long to carry out the repairs.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is it proposed, in view of the present situation, to refit the "Iron Duke" on a war basis?

Mr. Cooper: Not at present.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is expected that the "Warspite" will be ready for sea; and what is the cost of the repairs necessary since her refit?

Mr. Cooper: His Majesty's Ship "Warspite" is ready for sea. The amount spent on the repairs to the vessel since the completion of her reconstruction is £16,600 which was included in the total cost of reconstruction given in my reply of 24th November.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these delays in the "Warspite" being ready for sea after the refit were not due to very serious miscalculations on the part of the constructors in connection with the refits?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir. The difficulty was due to the interaction of the propellers. There is no criticism of the engineers or of the firm of Messrs. Parsons, which carried out the installation of the machinery. It was quite satisfactory.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Were no difficulties experienced in connection with the rudders after this refit?

Mr. Cooper: I have explained what the difficulties were.

FUEL.

Mr. Day: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ships in the Navy at present driven by coal power; and whether any of these ships have been using pulverised fuel?

Mr. Cooper: Excluding small auxiliary craft such as trawlers and drifters, there are at present 50 vessels of the Royal Navy fitted to burn coal. None of them is fitted to burn pulverised coal.

Mr. Day: Are further experiments being made with pulverised coal?

Mr. Cooper: I think that such experiments as have been made have already convinced the authorities that pulverised coal is not desirable as a fuel.

HERRING FLEET.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has now considered the memorandum from the Convention of Royal Burghs with regard to the extent to which the Admiralty proposes to make use of the personnel of the herring fleet in time of war; and whether, in view of the importance of Admiralty co-operation in this matter, if the industry is to be restored to a reasonable degree of its pre-war prosperity, what steps he proposes to take to deal with the matter?

Mr. Cooper: The memorandum referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend has only recently been received and is now under consideration. I am, therefore, not in a position to make a statement on the subject at present.

KENYA (EUROPEAN SETTLERS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commission on settlement now sitting in Kenya are to give consideration to the settlement of other than white people?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to three questions on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on 25th November, to which I have nothing to add.

NIGERIA (COCOA CROP).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the anxiety among inhabitants of Nigeria respecting the effect of the produce pool agreement recently entered into by European merchants; and whether he will make available the terms of this agreement?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have received no reports in the sense indicated in the first part of the hon. Member's question. I understand that the purchase and export


of the Nigerian cocoa crop is proceeding as usual. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 16th December to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall).

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this assurance that in fact there is considerable disagreement among the natives in this part of Africa regarding this projected arrangement, and will he make further investigations, in view of the considerable apprehension that exists?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I fully realise the considerable apprehension that exists on the Gold Coast, but not in Nigeria, and the matter is receiving attention.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any information that I send to him?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON.

INDIANS (MORTALITY).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the death rate, birth rate, and infantile mortality rate among the Indian natives on the Ceylon tea plantations?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: For 1936 the death rate among Indian natives on Ceylon estates was 19.4 per 1,000 of the mean population, the birth rate 37.9, and the infant mortality rate 172 per 1,000 births.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with these conditions, and can he not initiate or encourage some action to reduce this rather drastic rate of mortality?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think the rate of mortality is not very high, seeing that it is a tropical country. The birth rate is double the mortality rate. This is entirely a matter within the province of the responsible Minister of Health and the Ceylon Legislature. I have no power to take any action.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has no power even to encourage or make suggestions to the Ceylonese?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir. The Ceylonese Minister of Health is responsible for this matter under the Ceylon Constitution.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has never given advice to the Ceylonese Government?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir, frequently on matters within my province under the Constitution, but agriculture, health and matters of that sort, under the Constitution, are definitely the responsibility of the Ceylonese Ministers.

Mr. Sorensen: Is this not a matter of health?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. It is definitely part of the duties of the responsible Minister of Health in Ceylon.

FRANCHISE AND CONSTITUTION.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has recently been in consultation with the Indian Government on the question of the franchise of Indian workers in Ceylon; and what representations from the Indian Government have been made to him on the constitution of Ceylon?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am not aware that any representations have recently been made by the Government of India on the subject of either the general franchise or the constitution of Ceylon. The hon. Member may have in mind proposals recently before the State Council in regard to the election of village committees, about which the Government of India have, I understand, been in correspondence with Ministers in Ceylon.

CYPRUS (ARCHBISHOPRIC).

Mr. Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is anything to prevent a non-Cypriote being elected to the vacant Archbishopric of the Orthodox Church in Cyprus?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. A law enacted in Cyprus in November, 1937, provides that no person who is not a native of the colony shall be capable of being elected Archbishop.

COLONIAL SERVICE (PENSIONS).

Wing-Commander James: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the absence of proportionate retiring pensions in the Colonial Office, such as exist in the fighting services, results in the retention, to enable them to reach pensionable age, of persons who have shown themselves to be unsuitable for the highest posts, thereby, inter alia, blocking promotion; and whether he will take steps to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I assume that this question refers to officers in the Colonial Service and not to the Colonial Office. The pension conditions of such officers are regulated by local laws, the provisions of which vary. In most colonies officers may retire with pension at 55. In several colonies there is provision, in special cases, for retirement on pension at the age of 50, and it is my policy to extend this arrangement to other colonies as opportunity offers. I do not consider that any further action is necessary or desirable.

NYASALAND.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to give on Sir Robert Bell's inquiry into the finances of Nyasaland?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Sir Robert Bell is still pursuing his inquiries in Nyasaland. I cannot yet state when they will be completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

RELIEF WORKS.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds £4,000 has been granted to the Arabs of Beersheba to help with their planting; and whether he is satisfied that such payments are desirable in the interests of law and order?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Expenditure of £5,000 in relief works in the Southern District of Palestine has recently been approved. Part of this sum will be applied to the relief of widespread distress

in certain areas of the Beersheba Sub-District due to a 75 per cent. crop failure. As regards the second part of the question, I am certainly satisfied that the prevention of distress is in the interests of law and order.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this is not a payment in order to prevent the cutting of telephone wires?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly.

COMMISSION.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the new Commission will proceed to Palestine; and what steps are being taken to formulate the new policy authorised by the Council of the League of Nations?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I expect to be able to announce the character and terms of reference of the new Commission shortly, and there will be no avoidable delay in sending out the Commission to Palestine. Meanwhile the Government of Palestine are preparing data for its use.

ZANZIBAR.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the boycott of Zanzibar cloves by Indians continues; what financial effect it has had on the colony; and whether any recent steps have been taken by the colony to conciliate Indian opinion?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I regret that the reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, owing to the reduction in exports there has been a shortfall in the revenue derived from the export duty on cloves, which is estimated at £30,000 for 1937. This revenue will, however, be collected in due course, when the cloves now accumulated in Zanzibar are exported. With regard to the third part of the question, the Resident is at any time open to receive for consideration any suggestions from the Indian community in Zanzibar, provided that they are compatible with the maintenance of the present system of marketing cloves which was introduced, after the fullest consideration, to protect the interests of the native growers.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of that heavy loss of revenue, is it not possible for the Resident to initiate further representations to the Indian community with a view to getting this matter settled?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir. There was a prolonged inquiry by the Government and it is more for the Indian community, who have been met very generously by the Government, to put forward further suggestions. We are there to protect the interests of the native growers.

DEPENDENCIES (VISIT OF THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE).

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Under-Secretary of State has been given any special subjects for investigation in his forthcoming visit to certain colonies and protectorates; and whether he will, in particular, be requested to report on the labour situation in Mauritius and on methods, such as the development of housing schemes, by which it could be met?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The purpose of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's forthcoming visit to certain Dependencies is not to investigate any special problems, but that he may have the advantage of acquainting himself at first hand with conditions as a whole. Any report he may make at the conclusion of the tour will, no doubt, contain some reference to the subject mentioned by the hon. Member in the second part of his question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA.

SETTLEMENT SCHEME.

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that natives owning undipped cattle have been removed from the land in Southern Tanganyika which has been conceded for Lord Chesham's settlement scheme, under what powers such natives have been removed; what compensation has been awarded to them; and what steps are being taken to provide an adequate labour supply for the intending settlers?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the answer is a long one, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The 278 natives concerned were not compulsorily removed from the land leased to the company. They voluntarily agreed to move after having been interviewed individually by a district officer well known to them, who put before each person (who was entirely free to do as he wished) the following alternatives:


(a) To continue to exercise such rights of occupation and user as he possessed.
(b) To surrender such rights to the company and to remove to another area, receiving compensation for disturbance.
(c) To remain as a tenant of the company on such terms as might be agreed between him and the company.

The natives elected to move to another area available for their occupation, and received £1,700 as compensation in accordance with an assessment made by the district administration. No steps are being taken by Government to provide a labour supply for the settlers, who must find their own labour from among the plentiful number of neighbouring tribesmen, many of whom have in the past had to travel long distances to find work.

SLEEPING SICKNESS.

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in connection with the recently published annual report of the Colonial Development Advisory Committee, he will ask for the name of the Tanganyika African who is mentioned as having allowed himself, in the course of investigations into the transmissibility of sleeping sickness, to be infected with the disease, in order that his service to the cause of science and public health may be recognised?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The name of the volunteer in question was Ngasa. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the bravery which has been shown by this man, and others connected with this sleeping sickness research, in exposing themselves to infection. Ngasa made a most satisfactory recovery.

Dr. Guest: Have similar cases occurred in other colonies of tropical Africa?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes—certainly in Uganda some time ago, when Dr. Duke was in charge of a similar research.

BARBADOS (DISTURBANCES).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement regarding the recent disturbances in Barbados; how many persons were killed; how many wounded; and what number of those arrested are still in prison?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The total casualties were 14 killed and 47 injured. I have no information with regard to the last part of the question.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not possible to do something to alter economic conditions there, and to make life more bearable for these people, instead of developing a situation like this?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The hon. Member knows that the island is fully developed and very densely populated, and that the population is dependent entirely on the price of the sugar which is their only export.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that sentences totalling 20 years' imprisonment have been imposed on three negroes, two of whom were convicted of sedition and one of incitement to riot in connection with the recent disturbances in Barbados; and whether, in view of the previous good records of the three men convicted, he will review these sentences with a view to mitigation?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have no information regarding the imposition of the sentences to which the hon. Member refers; but, with regard to the second part of the question, I would point out that the exercise of the prerogative of pardon in respect of sentences imposed by a court of justice in a Colony is delegated to the Governor of the Colony, and does not rest with the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make recommendations to the Governor, in view of the fact that sedition is merely the expression of political opinions that the ruling class do not like?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir. Sedition is certainly not that. Sedition under the law of the land, and particularly under many Colonial laws, is usually incitement to violence, and it certainly would be

most unconstitutional, and a thing which is never done, for me to make representations to a Governor as regards the exercise of the prerogative of pardon.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that one of these men was charged with sedition and another with inciting to violence, and, therefore, sedition is not incitement to violence?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has had his answer.

BRITISH GUIANA (INDIANS, REPATRIATION).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any proposal in the coming year to repatriate a further number of Indians from British Guiana?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. Arrangements for chartering a ship for that purpose are at present under consideration.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the anxiety felt by the Indians in this territory in regard to this proposal, should there not be some hesitation before repatriation is carried out; and will the right hon. Gentleman receive representations on the matter?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I understand that no Indian is repatriated against his will. I also understand that there are 600 Indians who wish to return to their homes.

KENYA AND UGANDA RAILWAY.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the annual current revenue of the Kenya and Uganda Railway is expected to be £2,500,000, he will represent to the local Government the desirability of considering improved conditions for the staff?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The conditions of service of certain classes of the staff employed on the Kenya and Uganda Railway have recently been reviewed by the railway administration, and I see no reason to suggest a further review of these conditions at this juncture.

Mr. McEntee: In view of the fact that there has been considerable increase of revenue, will the right hon. Gentleman


not consider advising that the cases of those members of the staff which have not been reviewed, should now be reviewed?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: To the best of my knowledge, there was a comprehensive review, but if the hon. Member has any individual cases to bring to my attention, I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AIR COUNCIL.

Captain Harold Balfour: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many Royal Air Force officers who have been members of the Air Council during the past five years have subsequently been appointed to Royal Air Force commands at Home or abroad?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The answer is two.

Captain Balfour: Can the Under-Secretary of State say what proportion that bears to the total number of members of the Air Council, and can he give the House an assurance that it is the policy of the Air Ministry that service on the Air Council is not the ultimate aim to which an officer can rise, but is only a part stage through which he may pass to higher commands?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: There are four service members of the Air Council who have relinquished that appointment during the past five years. That makes the proportion subsequently appointed to commands 50 per cent. I think my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the procedure followed hitherto will not be departed from.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are the two officers in question still regarded as eligible for appointment?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: For a further appointment?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I do not think they are ineligible.

TURNHOUSE AND DONIBRISTLE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many persons now attached to the Royal Air Force

stations at Turnhouse and Donibristle, respectively, will have their services terminated as the result of the changes in disposition which are to take place; and what arrangements will be made to provide suitable alternative employment?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The numbers as at present anticipated will be 35 at Turnhouse and 11 at Donibristle. As regards the second part of the question, the normal procedure is for industrial employés to be obtained locally through the Employment Exchanges, and the names of those concerned will be reported to the exchanges with a view to their absorption in other employment.

Mr. Mathers: Is it not clear from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply that this indicates that there is a serious lessening of the value of the Air Force at these two stations, and may I ask whether this is a purely Air Force move or whether the matter may be further considered by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: There is undoubtedly a lessening of the Air Force strength at these places. With regard to the wider issue affecting the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, perhaps the hon. Member will put that question to him.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air to what parts of the country the Royal Air Force units now stationed at Turnhouse and Donibristle will be removed; how many officers and men will go from each station; and whether special monetary consideration will be given to those who have to leave their homes?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Nos. 22 and 42 Squadrons will move from Donibristle to Thorney Island and No. 83 Squadron from Turnhouse to Scampton. Twenty-two officers and 224 airmen will go from Donibristle and 15 officers and 146 airmen from Turnhouse. Provision is made for payment of removal expenses to qualified officers and all airmen on the married establishment and for rent compensation in certain cases and no special monetary consideration in connection with these moves is contemplated.

Mr. Mathers: Can the Minister say how many officers and men will replace those who move?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Mr. Mathers: Does the Minister realise that by these answers he is adding to the perturbation that is felt in the area, and that many people are apprehensive about the way in which the Air Force is making its dispositions in that area?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I can appreciate that the residents in that neigbour-hood are sorry that part of the Air Force is leaving. I am sure that they will recognise the tribute which the hon. Member pays to the popularity of the Air Force in those parts.

Mr. Mathers: Does not the Minister realise that it is much more serious than that?

PENSIONS (STATE EXPENDITURE).

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that no machinery exists either at the Scottish Office or the Treasury for calculating the amounts of State expenditure upon old age pensions, widows' pensions, or pensions under the Blind Persons Act in the city of Glasgow or in any other geographical area; and whether, in view of the social and statistical importance of this information to Members of this House and to the public in general, he will give instructions that the information referred to is to be collected and made available to questions in this House?

The Prime Minister: Pensions records, for reasons arising out of the need for expeditious and accurate administration, are not kept on a geographical basis which would be necessary to provide the information which the hon. Member desires. I do not think the importance of the information is such as to justify the labour and expense which would be involved in obtaining it.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I placed three questions down to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who transferred them to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that I have been utterly unable to obtain any information in regard to pensions, under the headings in my question, paid in the City of Glasgow; and does he not think that if the local treasurers can submit

this information, Members of Parliament should be able at least to have that information verified from either the Treasury or the Secretary of State for Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I do not understand what the hon. Member means by saying that the information has been given by the treasurers. In any case, it does not affect my answer.

Mr. Davidson: I mean by the local treasurers. The treasurers of local government give a report, sometimes in the public Press, and does the right hon. Gntleman not think that the figures of these local treasurers should at least be verified or able to be verified by Members of this House?

The Prime Minister: The question deals with expenditure upon these particular pensions, and I do not see how the local treasurers can have access to that information.

Mr. Davidson: They must have more ability, apparently, than the members of the Government.

ECONOMIC MISSION (M. VAN ZEELAND'S REPORT).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive M. Van Zeeland's report; and whether he will obtain M. Van Zeeland's consent to its publication in order that public opinion in this and other countries may be informed as to the proposals contained therein for securing economic appeasement?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of this question, I would refer the hon. Member to what I said on this subject in the course of the Debate yesterday, and in reply to the second part, I would refer him to the answer given on 7th December to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), to which I have at present nothing to add.

Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that very great public interest has been taken in M. Van Zeeland's mission and that his report will be of very great public importance, and will he not, therefore, consider giving full information to the public in due course?

The Prime Minister: As I have already said in my answers, I will bear these points in mind.

HOME PRODUCTION OF FEEDING STUFFS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an early date for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham relating to the home production of feeding stuffs?

["That, in view of the vulnerable position occupied during war by agriculture in respect of the importation of feeding stuffs, this House urges on the Government the need for developing at home supplies of suitable commodities by permitting the cultivation of additional acreage of potatoes which are not suitable for human consumption but which can be fed to pigs, by using surplus fish for the production of fish-meal for poultry feeding, and by establishing national factories for the supply of these two feeding stuffs to the rearers of pigs and poultry."]

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In the present state of public business I can hold out no hope of time being available for the discussion of this Motion.

Mr. De la Bère: Are the Government aware that the financial resources of the poultry keepers are in many cases exhausted, and that it is essential that cheap feeding stuffs for poultry should be secured; and may I say, For the love of Mike, do something soon?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

OIL EXTRACTION (FALMOUTH COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he is now in a position to give any information regarding the report of the Falmouth Committee?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): The report is still under examination. Consideration is being given to the possibility of publishing as a Parliamentary Paper the substance of the report in such a way as not to disclose confidential information contained in the report.

Mr. Edwards: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence the names of the witnesses who were asked to give evidence before the Falmouth Committee; who suggested themselves; and who, in fact, did give evidence?

Sir T. Inskip: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on 1st December in answer to a similar question.

Mr. Edwards: As the answer to which the right hon. Gentleman refers me did not say anything, can we not have an undertaking now that when the report is published this information will be given?

Sir T. Inskip: No, I can give no promise that I shall be able to disclose the names of the witnesses who asked to give evidence or who in fact did give evidence.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Is there any reason why the names of witnesses, as asked by my hon. Friend, should not be given?

Sir T. Inskip: As I have said to the hon. Member, the report is still under consideration, and in the answer to which I have referred I said that I was not in a position to answer questions about the evidence except in connection with the question of publication. The position at present is that I cannot give a definite answer or an undertaking such as that asked for by the hon. Member.

Mr. Leach: In view of the enormous numbers of matters under consideration, does the right hon. Gentleman not fear for his sanity?

ANTI-AIRCRAFT.

Mr. Short: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (1) what steps are being taken to provide adequate anti-aircraft defence of munition and railway centres; whether sites for antiaircraft guns have been surveyed and selected; and whether the Territorial and Regular Forces are responsible for antiaircraft defence;
(2) what anti-aircraft guns have been allotted to Doncaster and the surrounding area?

Sir T. Inskip: I can assure the hon. Member that steps are taken and appropriate dispositions are made according to the circumstances of each case, but it


would not be in the public interest to disclose the character or extent of preparations for the defence of particular localities. As regards the second part of the first question, the answer is in the affirmative.

FOOD STORAGE.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he hopes to be able to make a statement on food storage when the House reassembles after the Christmas Adjournment?

Sir T. Inskip: I regret I am not in a position to give any undertaking.

Mr. Adams: May we not at least have an assurance that the Government are actively busy on this matter?

CALCIUM CARBIDE.

Mr. Walker: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in view of the recent report of the Committee on Calcium Carbide Production, he will give careful consideration to the coke-oven gas method of carbide production, having regard to the fact that this latter method can be operated in most of the depressed industrial areas, and will also give a stimulus to the production of pig-iron in certain of these areas?

Sir T. Inskip: I am advised that a scheme for the production of calcium carbide by means of coke-oven gas was submitted to and given very careful consideration by the Calcium Carbide Committee before they made the recommendation which has been accepted by the Government.

Mr. Walker: Am I to understand that the Government have accepted the recommendations in that report, and can I have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no intention on the part of the Government to give a monopoly either to one system or to one factory for the production of calcium carbide?

Sir T. Inskip: I answered a question on 18th November as to the decision of the Government upon the report. With reference to the part of the hon. Gentleman's question concerning monopoly, there is no intention of giving a monopoly to anybody.

CIVIL AVIATION (AIRCRAFT SUPPLIES).

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any decision has been reached as to whether the Cadman Committee may inquire into and report upon the present difficulties with which British civil aviation companies are faced in obtaining efficient and rapid supplies of up-to-date aeroplanes from aircraft manufacturers in this country; and, if not, whether, in view of the dependence of the prestige of British civil aviation upon such supplies, he will reconsider such a decision?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I understand that the Cadman Committee will investigate the matters referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TYNESIDE AREAS.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to set up an inquiry into the desirability of establishing a Tyneside passenger transport board, as suggested in the findings of the Royal Commission on the Unification of Tyneside Areas; and if so, whether an opportunity to prepare a case will be given to all those persons most vitally concerned?

Colonel Sandeman Allen: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to set up an inquiry as suggested in the findings of the Royal Commission on the Unification of Tyneside Areas; and, if so, whether an opportunity to prepare a case will be given to those persons most concerned, that is to say, all omnibus operators?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): Before deciding how this matter can best be examined, I shall desire to be informed as to the views of the various local authorities and other interests concerned, which I am awaiting.

Mr. E. Smith: Will the Minister also bear in mind that his own supporters were responsible for turning down a similar application in the North Staffordshire area?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is the Minister seeking information from the various constituent boards in that area?

ALL-STEEL RAILWAY COACHES.

Mr. Cassells: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the advantages of all-steel railway carriages over carriages constructed mainly of wood; and whether he is prepared to take steps to make the universal use of all-steel coaches compulsory?

Mr. Burgin: Apart from some all-steel rolling stock, coaches of modern design on main line railways in this country all have steel underframes, with wood, or wood and steel, bodies; they embody 75 to 85 per cent. of their weight in steel. The design of rolling stock is a matter which is constantly under review by the railway companies. My technical advisers feel that there is no justification on grounds of safety for making the use of all-steel coaches compulsory on main line railways, nor have I any power in this respect.

Mr. Cassells: Is the Minister aware that the type of semi-steel coach to which he refers was abolished in the United States of America 25 years ago, and that in Belgium the all-steel coach is universally used; and will he not be prepared in those special circumstances to set up a Government inquiry into this point?

Mr. McEntee: Is it not a fact that the British railways are the safest in the world, and that the present form of steel and wood construction is admittedly the best for our railways?

Mr. Burgin: As I have made clear in the answer to the original question, I am concerned with main line railways in this country. This matter is constantly under review, and my technical advisers take the view that the present type of coach, with the greater part of it steel and with a certain amount of teak or mahogany, is the safest for British traffic conditions. I am satisfied that they know their business, but I am always willing to be informed, and if information is placed before me I will give it detailed attention.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS (COMPANIES' LIABILITY).

Mr. Cassells: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that railway companies in Great Britain, when issuing cheap day tickets, contract themselves out of common law liability for payment of damages to injured persons in

the event of railway accidents where fault may attach to any of their employés, thereby causing much hardship to such injured persons; and what steps he is prepared to take to remedy this injustice?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. The matter is not one with regard to which I have any statutory powers, but, as indicated in my answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) on 3rd November, I am carefully considering whether there is any useful action that I can take.

Mr. Cassells: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared, in the circumstances outlined in the question, to make a recommendation to the British railway companies to terminate this obviously invidious practice?

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to use his influence with the Prime Minister to give facilities for a Bill that I introduced in order to make the companies liable?

RIBBON DEVELOPMENT.

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that notice boards have recently been erected on land immediately adjacent to the Watford by-pass road, northern half, offering such land for sale for the erection of factories and houses; and whether he will take immediate steps to discourage any further ribbon development on this highway?

Mr. Burgin: I am aware of the notice boards. The Hertfordshire County Council are the highway authority for the road in question, and I have no doubt that they will exercise their powers under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, to prevent any undesirable development of the land in question.

Mr. Crowder: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many notice boards which have lately appeared on the road between Staines and the Great West Road, and will he look into them as well?

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement on the action taken by county councils in England to prevent ribbon development, either by purchasing the frontages themselves or by sterilising them for building purposes?

Mr. Burgin: I have received particulars of one purchase of land for the purpose mentioned, by the Oxfordshire County Council of 90 acres fronting on to the Kidlington-Oxford Road (A.423). As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 17th November.

Mr. Paling: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this Act is being operated, and does not this one case indicate that it is not being made use of? If that is so, what steps is he taking to put it into operation?

Mr. Burke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of land fronting these roads is so prohibitive as to make the Act ineffective?

Mr. Burgin: Hon. Members will understand that under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act it is for the local highway authority to make the move in this matter. It is a matter of local discretion but perhaps the publicity given to this question will assist more local authorities to use their discretionary powers.

Mr. Paling: If there has been so little action is it not obvious that there is some obstacle in the way, and has the Minister considered what it is?

Mr. Burke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after the local authority has used all its powers, it ultimately comes down to purchase, and that the price of land is so prohibitive that the authority cannot face the purchase, and therefore the Act becomes ineffective.

HOLYHEAD ROAD.

Mr. Adamson: asked the Minister of Transport whether any plans are projected for the widening of the main Holyhead Road between Weedon and Brownhills; and whether it is contemplated that the new road will be raised to the level of the canal bridges?

Mr. Burgin: The Holyhead Road (A.5) between Weedon and Brownhills lies within the counties of Northampton, Warwick, Leicester and Stafford, and the respective county councils are the responsible highway authorities. I understand that the Northampton County Council are preparing plans for the improvement of the road in their area,

including the reconstruction of the canal bridges in question and the raising of the approaches to eliminate the humps and improve visibility. There are no proposals before me at present from the other councils concerned for the general widening of the road.

Mr. Adamson: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his persuasion with the other authorities to see that this dangerous road is improved?

Mr. Burgin: Perhaps this question will have that effect.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Adamson: asked the Minister of Transport the number of persons killed and injured on the roads in the county of Stafford during the first 10 months of 1937 and the comparative numbers for the corresponding months of 1936?

Mr. Burgin: The numbers of persons killed or injured in road accidents in the county of Stafford police district, that is, excluding the county boroughs of Newcastle, Stoke, Walsall and Wolverhampton, during the ten months ended 31st October, 1937, were 127 and 3,602 respectively, compared with 115 and 3,523 in the corresponding period of 1936.

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the steps taken in Oxfordshire to improve the junctions on the rural sections of the chief roads by making them join at right angles; how many of these junctions have been thus transformed; how many remain to be transformed; and whether he can give any figures showing how these precautions have lessened fatal and non-fatal accidents at these places?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir; grants were made to the Oxfordshire County Council in 1935 and 1936 of 75 per cent. of the cost, estimated at £30,000, of a comprehensive scheme for improving 58 road intersections on important Class I roads. Of these improvements 57 had been completed at the end of July last. The information asked for in the last part of the question is not available.

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the statement by the surveyor to the Oxfordshire County Council, a copy of which has been sent to him, that three out of


every four fatal accidents in the county during the last four years would not have taken place had the roads been originally designed and constructed in accordance with the interpretation of the Ministry's recently published brochure on the subject; whether a similar experience is reported from other counties; and, if so, whether he will consider pressing all county councils to expedite road improvements?

Mr. Burgin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his question on 20th December. The opinions expressed by the Oxfordshire County Surveyor on the accident causation are not supported by the information contained in the police reports which are supplied to me. I have received no similar representation from other counties.

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of Transport whether it is the practice of his Department to ask county councils to furnish a report as to whether road conditions on the scenes of fatal accidents can be improved; and, if not, will he consider the desirability of introducing this policy?

Mr. Burgin: All fatal accidents which are alleged to be due to road conditions are investigated by officers attached to the divisional offices of the Ministry and appropriate action taken where necessary.

CASTLETON (LANCASHIRE) RAILWAY STATION.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will inquire when the railway company intend to engage upon the rebuilding of the Castleton (Lancashire) station, in view of the danger to passengers?

Mr. Burgin: I am informed by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company that a scheme for the raising of the platforms at Castleton has now been prepared and will shortly be submitted to the board of directors for approval.

CATERHAM AND WARLINGHAM (ROAD IMPROVEMENT GRANT).

Mr. Emmott: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that an application submitted by the urban district council of Caterham and Warlingham for the determination of the amount of grant to be made by the county council

under Section 33 of the Local Government Act, 1929, in respect of a highway improvement, has been before his Department since April, 1936, and has not yet been decided, in spite of repeated discussions and negotiations; and whether, having regard to the fact that the prolonged delay may tend seriously to-prejudice the interests of the local authority responsible for controlling development in the area affected, he can now undertake to make an early decision on this application?

Mr. Burgin: In their written submission of 2nd April, 1936, the urban district council asked me to postpone adjudication until they had received a further communication from the county council. Further negotiations between the two authorities followed and it was not until 3rd July, 1937, that I was asked to proceed. I hope very shortly to give my decision on this rather complicated case.

PORT AND TRANSIT COMMITTEE.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Minister of Transport why, when appointing, representatives of transport and dock undertakings and of trade organisations to the Port and Transit Committee, he did not also appoint representatives of trades unions whose members would be-directly affected by a diversion of seaborne traffic from East Coast ports to West Coast ports in the event of war?

Mr. Burgin: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his suggestion and am already considering the most suitable way of bringing representatives of labour into consultation.

DAGENHAM.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the railway company have now decided to accept a tender for the widening of Whalebone Lane railway bridge; that the Dagenham Urban District Council have given their approval and that the necessary loan sanction for the widening work to the embankments of this bridge was given by the same council in 1934; and when loan sanction to both parts of this necessary improvement will be given?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. The urban district council submitted full financial details on 17th December, and these are now being examined with a view to a grant being made and a loan sanction recommended.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that plans for the widening of Dagenham Road were submitted by the Dagenham Urban District Council in February, 1936; that long negotiations with the landowners concerned have now been completed; that some contributions towards the cost of the road works have been promised on condition that the work is started at an early date; and whether he can give loan sanction in the near future, so that advantage may be taken of this offer to give partial relief to the rates?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. I am aware that these negotiations have been completed, but a revised scheme was submitted by the urban district council who furnished the final details on 23rd November. These are now being examined with a view to a grant being made and a loan sanction recommended.

PEDESTRIANS.

Major Whiteley: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the non-motoring public is not necessarily familiar with the Highway Code, he will, in the interests of safety, take special steps to encourage pedestrians to walk to the left of the pavement and to the right of the road, so as to face oncoming traffic?

Mr. Burgin: It is as important for pedestrians as for motorists to be familiar with the Highway Code, and copies of it were sent to every householder in the country. I think that there are other points in the Code which need emphasising no less than the one to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

WATERLOO BRIDGE (GOVERNMENT GRANT).

Mr. H. Morrison: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the need for relieving the congestion in the streets of London by major schemes of highway improvement, whether he proposes to consult thereon with the London County Council as the improvement authority and whether he is now prepared to review the decision to make no contribution to the cost of demolishing the old Waterloo Bridge and replacing it by a new structure?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. The Government, who have continually under review

the present and prospective traffic requirements of London, have satisfied themselves that a number of important improvements in the highway facilities are necessary, including, of course, cross river facilities on the site of old Waterloo Bridge. The London County Council is the improvement authority in London, and the Government would hope to have its cordial co-operation in the provision of these facilities. No contribution can be made by the Government towards the cost of demolishing the old Waterloo Bridge, but they recognise that the provision of a new bridge is now a necessary feature of the improvements they have in mind, and they accordingly propose to approve a contribution from the Road Fund amounting to 60 per cent. of the cost of building the new bridge.

Mr. Morrison: In the special circumstances I shall be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you and the House will permit me to say that the County Council will, I am sure, greatly appreciate the decision of the Government, as announced by the right hon. Gentleman, to make a 60 per cent. grant towards the cost of the new Waterloo Bridge. This decision, by removing a long-standing cause of disagreement, will introduce a new and happier spirit of kindly co-operation.

ROYAL PARKS (REFRESHMENT PAVILIONS).

Mr. C. Wilson: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that his predecessor gave an undertaking to a deputation that no permission would be accorded by his Department for an application for a licence to sell drink in any Royal park unless the drink was purchased along with a meal; and whether any and what changes have taken place which necessitate a departure from this policy?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): There is no record in my Department of such an undertaking. The consent of the licensing justices must be obtained before any change in the present arrangements can be made, and, as I stated in reply to a question on 13th December, I see no ground for objecting to the refreshment caterers making an application to the justices.

ORDNANCE FACTORY, BRIDGEND (WORKING CONDITIONS).

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that there are more than 3,000 persons unemployed in the five Employment Exchanges in the area of the Bridgend Royal Arsenal; and whether he will insist that 12-hour shifts at the arsenal shall cease in order that local labour may obtain employment?

Sir P. Sassoon: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 16th December, except that I understand that the shifts are for 10 and 11 hours and not 12 hours.

Mr. Williams: Does not the First Commissioner think that the working of 10- or 11-hour shift is a breach of the civil engineering rates with which the contractors are expected to comply, and is he aware that more than 120 persons have been imported into that district out of 259 engaged?

Sir P. Sassoon: We have to allow the time taken for machinery adjustments, meals and week-end repairs, and if that is done two of the shifts work only 35 hours, and one only 39½ hours. In those circumstances we should not get the requisite men.

Mr. Thorne: What stands in the way of the working of three 8-hour shifts?

Sir P. Sassoon: I have said that we should not be able to get the men.

Mr. Williams: There are more than 500 men on the local unemployed register. Surely the Prime Minister will look into this matter. Local labour is left idle while persons are imported.

WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL SITE.

Mr. Keeling: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether plans and elevations of a block of offices proposed for erection on the present site of Westminster Hospital in Broad Sanctuary overlooking Westminster Abbey have been submitted to him in accordance with Section 13 (1) (E) of the Westminster Hospital Act, 1913; whether he is aware that the central portion of this building will, if the elevations are approved, reach a

height of about 128 feet, dwarfing the nave of the Abbey; and what action he has taken or proposes to take?

Sir P. Sassoon: The plans and elevations have not yet been submitted to me in accordance with the provisions of the Westminster Hospital Act, 1913. I am aware that the proposals submitted to the London County Council provide for a building rising to the height mentioned. I understand that consideration is being given by the Council to the question of height, and I myself am in communication with the council in the matter.

Mr. Keeling: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply may I ask whether he has, in fact, power under the Act named to refuse sanction for an objectionable building on this side; and is he aware that the Chapter of the Abbey are seriously alarmed at the prospects of such a high building being erected?

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentlemen say whether it is proposed to submit this building to the Royal Fine Art Commission?

Sir P. Sassoon: Yes, I think it is.

TAX OFFICE, CHORLEY.

Mr. Kelly: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of the most unsuitable office accommodation provided for the staff of His Majesty's-inspector of taxes, 10, Park Road, Chorley, Lancashire, and that the present building was condemned as unsuitable by his Department some years ago; and whether, in view of the complete lack of progress in finding suitable alternative accommodation, he will consider the erection of a Crown building, as has been done in the case of the local Employment Exchange and the post office?

Sir P. Sassoon: I am aware that the accommodation provided for the inspector of taxes at Chorley is poor and below standard, and every effort will be made to provide suitable alternative accommodation as early as possible. Having regard to the comparatively small area of accommodation required, it is not desirable to erect a Crown building if that course can be avoided.

Mr. Kelly: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that these people


have adequate accommodation in which to perform the work they are called upon to do?

Sir P. Sassoon: I have said that I am taking every step that I can.

EXPLOSION, MURTON COLLIERY, DURHAM.

Mr. Ritson: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give a report as to the mine explosion which has unfortunately occurred at Murton Colliery, County Durham.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I am very sorry to have to inform the House that an explosion occurred in the small hours of yesterday morning in the five-quarter seam at Murton Colliery, Durham, whereby four men died. The site of the explosion was a wide heading, a mile and a half from the pit bottom. At the time of the explosion three of the four men killed, including a deputy, were in the heading and all were found to have been badly burned. The fourth man had apparently entered the heading after the explosion and was overcome by afterdamp. He was still alive when found by the rescue party but their efforts to revive him were unsuccessful. Investigation into the cause of the explosion is proceeding.
The House will wish to join with me in extending our deep sympathy to the relatives and friends of the victims of the explosion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the business for the week in which we resume after the Christmas vacation?

The Prime Minister: Tuesday, 1st February: Consideration of the New Standing Order with regard to Money Resolutions; Committee stage of the Population (Statistics) Bill; Further consideration of the Blind Persons Bill; Second Reading of the Dominica Bill (Lords); Consideration of outstanding Import Duties Orders which relate to carrots and peppercorns.
Wednesday: Consideration of Private Members' Motions.
Thursday: Committee stage of the Coal Bill.
Friday: Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.

BILL PRESENTED.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to amend the law of Scotland relating to criminal procedure and to the crime of incest and to the duties of procurators fiscal in relation to fatal accident inquiries," presented by Mr. Elliot; supported by the Lord Advocate, The Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Mr. Wedderburn; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Resolved,
That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the Clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the Clock; and that at Five of the Clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put."—[The Prime Minister.]

SNOWBALL TRADING.

Mr. A. Edwards: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the form of trading or investment known as snowball trading.
Hon. Members have become familiar with the form of trading covered by the term used in the title of the proposed Bill. I would like to describe one or two of the more obnoxious forms of trading operating in the North of England at the present time. The term covers a multitude of things and a great many sins. Unfortunately, it is at the present time a form of legalised fraud. In my constituency there is an illiterate woman whose husband has been out of work for a considerable time. She discovered that she can mislead innocent people into investing money on the pretence that they can get several times the amount of money they invest with her. I will take one case, in which people are asked to invest the sum of £5 and are promised that six months later they will receive £30. I have tried to get the assistance of the Board of Trade in this matter, but they are helpless, I understand. This legalised fraud must continue until some change is made in the law.
The Department tells me that it is no business of theirs to prevent fools from parting with their money, but all the people who have parted with their money are not fools. They are innocent people. They see so many examples of getting money for nothing that they think this is a practicable scheme. I present this Motion to the House because I hope to get support for the Bill to bring this very fraudulent method of trading to an end. An unemployed man who is able to borrow £5 a week to invest with this woman for six months finds it possible after that to have a net income of £25 per week. When one or two people have begun to do that and to get their money, everybody else thinks it is some new invention and some new method of business, and they all rush in to make their investments.
At the present time, thousands of people have invested, and some of them are getting their money back with this enormous interest, but every week more and more people have come into the scheme—hon. Members will understand that there has to be an ever increasing number—and at the end there will be a vast number of people losing from £1 to £10 which they can ill afford. The term "snowball trading" is very apt, because the income increases very rapidly, as a snowball does; it is also apt in the sense that it melts very rapidly. The people who run these schemes will melt away at the psychological moment, and perhaps have a holiday abroad, unless His Majesty's Government step in and give them a holiday at home.
To show how ridiculous it is, I mention the illustration of a man who invests £5 and who, as soon as five other people come into the scheme, is safe for his £30. The early bird catches the worm in this scheme and the late comers get nothing. The five people who come in to make the first investor safe must each find five others to make them safe. That means you need 25 people at the second stage and 125 people at the third stage. I have worked out how long it would take for the entire population to be absorbed in this scheme. Hon. Members may be interested to know that when you get to the twelfth stage you have involved 48,000,000 people, although there are only 45,000,000 people in the whole of Great Britain. It is about time that these innocent people

were given to understand that the scheme is entirely fraudulent and that the time will come, although those who were in very early have got their money, when their fellows will lose everything.
Another important factor is the interference which is brought about with legitimate trading in a town and district. The better class of tradesman refuses to have anything to do with the scheme, but it is very difficult for a tradesman, when someone walks into his shop and offers to pay £300 a week—as in one case that I know—and cash in advance, to see why he should refuse. As this is ultimately a very fraudulent scheme it should be stopped, and it should be stopped legally. I hope that the House will support the Motion. If the Government will not take action to render the scheme illegal, I commend the scheme to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I see no sense in our paying £300,000,000 a year for re-armament when it can be financed by means of this scheme, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would sit down with me for two or three minutes I would show him how rapidly he could pay off the National Debt. I appeal to the Government to support this Motion in order to bring to an end this abominable, shameful, fraudulent and dishonest scheme of trading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edwards and Mr. Kingsley Griffith.

SNOWBALL TRADING BILL,

"to prohibit the form of trading or investment known as snowball trading," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, nth February, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Major Mills; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Rowlands.

Report to lie upon the Table.

CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move,
That this House views with concern the long hours of labour, low wages, and bad conditions of employment prevalent in the distributive trades, and, whilst welcoming the efforts made by the best employers and the trades unions through collective agreements to establish better standards, is of opinion that further measures, including a more strict and uniform administration of the Shops Acts, are necessary to raise the social conditions of this very large section of the working community.
When a Member of this House is successful in the Ballot it is natural that he should select a subject for his Motion which is dear to his heart and with which he is fairly familiar. Those are two of the several reasons why I am to-day introducing the Motion which is now before the House, calling attention to the conditions of employment in the distributive trades. This is not the first occasion, as hon Members will know, that this issue has been debated in this Assembly, but I think it is the first time that we have been free to discuss every aspect of this mighty problem. In the past we have been circumscribed by the scope of the Bills that have been before us, but on this occasion we can roam through every shop, office and warehouse in the land in order to find arguments to put before the House of Commons.
It is not commonly known that there are about 1,000,000 shops of all kinds in this country—approximately one to every 40 inhabitants. I need hardly tell the House, therefore, that I am taking upon myself an explanation of a very big issue. There are shops employing as many as 5,000 or 6,000 assistants in one building and there are, at the other end of the scale, family butchers, grocers, boot-dealers, fishmongers and pawnbrokers, as well as many others, who employ only one or two assistants. There are chain stores, multiple shops and co-operative society establishments employing scores or hundreds in each of them, and they are to be found at almost every street-corner in the land. It is not commonly known, too, that there are employed behind the counters of these 1,000,000 shops at least 1,000,000 assistants, and an additional 1,500,000 or so are engaged in and about the distributive trades. That is entirely apart from the scores of thousands of

people who are employed in distribution in small shops on their own account. If you add together all those working for wages and in business on their own account in distribution, there are at least 3,000,000 earning their livelihood by distributing commodities and by shopkeeping. We are indeed a nation of shopkeepers. Another remarkable fact that has to be borne in mind is that the number of shop assistants has doubled in 20 years, from about 1,250,000 20 years ago to 2,500,000 working for wages to-day.
I come now to deal with their conditions of employment. In some towns the majority of shop assistants are women and girls. They are, therefore, the more easily exploited. Shop life has always been prone to absorb the younger section of the community. Indeed, I gather that in some towns and cities one of the beneficial employments under our present educational system is work in shops and offices for children about to leave school. It need hardly be said that the distributive trade is a colossal business. It employs as many persons as any three of the other largest industries in this country. No industry of any kind can show such an expansion in the rate of employment as distribution.
In our Motion we complain first of all about low wages, long hours and bad conditions of employment which still prevail. I hope no Members of the House will quarrel with the terms of the Motion. It was drafted deliberately in order to secure their support. I do not think I am far wrong in saying that Government Departments, the best employers, all social workers and men and women of good will in all walks of life, are as disturbed as many of us are at some of the bad conditions existing in the distributive trades. I am not going to criticise the best employers or even Government Departments, although incidentally I always like to have a tilt at them all on some occasions.
It is worth while to trace the history of the struggle of shop assitants for improvement in their conditions, to find out what they have achieved and what progress has been made towards their emancipation. A century of time in this country is not a long period. I have read of demonstrations of 20,000 assistants in London employed in shops a century ago and working regularly


90 and 100 hours per week, exclusive of meal times. I have never been able to understand why the status of shop assistants in this country is probably the lowest, compared with any other industrial country in the world. That can be vouched for by facts that are easily obtainable. As late as 30 years ago it was quite common for shop assistants to be employed from 60 to 90 hours per week, exclusive of meal times here at home.
Parliament from time to time has taken a very personal and deep interest in the shop assistant, mainly because the young women employed there are, to use a term of the Americans, only transients; they all look forward to marriage. Parliament was so disturbed in the year 1886 that it laid down a limit to the number of hours to be worked, not by shop assistants in general but by young persons under 18, and the limit, strange to say, was 74 hours per week. If an employer did not employ a young person beyond 74 hours per week he was immune from any penalty under the law. Even that provision was never adequately enforced. It was not until 1934 that any improvement was made in hours of labour and even then it was confined to young persons. Nothing whatever was done for adult shop assistants, except to provide them with a weekly half-holiday. Some few years ago Parliament did the most remarkable thing in its history—it compelled employers to provide seats for female shop assistants without providing them with any right to sit upon them. Therefore, no provision of any kind as to hours of labour or wages has been made by Parliament at any time in respect of the adults among the 2,500,000 people working in shops.
There is always a difficulty in making the public understand one thing. It is commonly supposed by those who are not conversant with distribution that because closing orders apply to shops and shops are compelled to close their doors at a given hour, the hours of labour also are regulated by those closing orders. That, of course, is not the case. There are tens and scores of thousands of shop assistants whose hours of labour have not the remotest relation to the point as to whether the shop is closed or open. Consequently, there are cases at the moment where

the hours of labour are atrocious. When the closing orders were issued in the first instance, there was no mention of the hours of labour of the assistants.
In 1930 I was appointed, among others, by this House to sit on a Select Committee to inquire into the whole problem of the conditions of employment in shops. The Act of 1934 was passed as a result of its report, improving the environment of shop assistants and limiting still further the hours of labour of young persons employed in the distributive trade; that was a boon to the young people employed in distribution. I recently called for a number of reports from local authorities showing what they were doing to enforce the Shops Acts. Parliament in this country on occasions has taken a very strange attitude towards shop life. When it passes a law relating to employment in shops it always transfers its enforcement to local authorities, and there are cases where some local authorities apparently have never heard of shops legislation at all. The way in which they try to enforce the law is pitiful in the extreme. I have particulars of cases showing that something has to be done in the near future to see that local authorities do their work properly. I am not attacking all local authorities because the large ones are making the job a real one; they are appointing shops inspectors who report to their chiefs at the town hall regularly. But still, the difference between shops inspection by local authorities on the one hand, and coal mine and factory inspections on a national basis, on the other hand, is glaring in the extreme.
Before I pass from legislation that has been passed, let me refer to the last Act of Parliament, the Sunday Trading Restriction Act. That did not affect very much the conditions of employment of the assistants. I gather, however, that they have benefited from the passing of that Act. I am told, too, that the shopkeepers themselves have welcomed that legislation, although in London there is still some difficulty about putting it into operation. I have tried to make myself acquainted with literature relating to the several industries of the country. A large number of books, fiction and fact, have been written about agriculture, coal mining, textiles and engineering, but it is strange that the full story of distribution


and the conditions of employment of shop assistants has hardly yet been told by any one—by comparison I mean.
I do not know how many Members of this present House were members of the Select Committee to which I have referred. Our terms of reference excluded entirely the question of wages; we had to deal with hours and conditions of work purely and simply. If any one cares to look for substantiation for the charges we shall make about the rotton conditions of employment in shops he has only to turn to the report of that Select Committee. He will find there that young girls from 14 to 18 and 20 years of age were being employed for 50, 60, 65 and 70 hours a week, excluding meal times. I have been astonished sometimes that Parliament has not done more for the young people in distribution. If any one wants the figures they are to be found statistically stated in this report. The committee divided "long" hours from "excessive" hours. If I wanted evidence to prove my case of bad conditions of employment in shops, it is therefore readily available.
I am glad to see one or two shopkeepers in the House this afternoon, and I am sure that they are among the best of employers; they would not be Members of Parliament if they were not, and if they were to become bad employers they would be thrown out of Parliament on the next occasion. If I wanted evidence in support of the contention that conditions are really bad in distribution I could quote from the evidence of Mr. W. W. Barlow, who spoke at a recent meeting of the Council of the Drapers' Chamber of Trade. Nothing that I or anybody else could say about these bad conditions would be stronger than this. He said:
We have not yet set our house in order, and there are some in this trade that I am almost ashamed to shake hands with.
There could be nothing stronger than that. Another employer in the distributive trade made the following statement:
There were many businesses where souls did not exist; where the one question was £ s. d.
Another went on to say:
I know some of the hardships imposed upon juveniles in the retail trade. There is certainly room for some law to compel certain types of trades to pay fair wages for work done.

I could give many other quotations proving, from the mouths of employers themselves, that all is not well in connection with the conditions of employment of these assistants. Their complaint is that, where a good employer is competing with a bad employer in the same line of business, selling the same commodities, the good employer is always at a disadvantage. I am not, however, moved by that argument, because I have always understood that, where the workpeople are properly treated and well paid, they will do work of better quality than those doing the same job under inferior conditions. That is proved by the experience of the co-operative movement, and in saying that I am supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), who nods assent.
With regard to wages, I do not know whether it will astonish the House to hear, but I have it on the best authority, that it is not uncommon for adult men to be employed to-day in distribution for 52, 54 and 60 hours a week at a weekly wage of 30s. or 35s. I myself made an inquiry recently in a large city in the North, which showed that it is not uncommon for adult women to be employed at a wage of 15s. a week, before deductions are made for the meals they are expected to take in the establishment or deductions towards the several social services. I was not astonished, therefore, when I was told that there is so much larceny and petty thieving in distribution, in view of the fact that the wages paid art; not sufficient to enable the assistants to maintain themselves decently. Apart from wages agreements entered into by the trade unions with some of the best employers, I am assured, again on the best authority, that conditions of employment as regards wages and hours have recently deteriorated markedly in the distributive trade as a whole. There are exceptions. The remarkable thing to my mind is that this trade—if it can be called a trade—of distribution can afford to pay better wages than any other industry in the land. Its profits on occasion are simply colossal. One firm has paid dividends of 25, 30, 35 and 50 per cent., and I do not know of any reputable distributive firm in this country that does not make a handsome profit, even when depression falls upon other industries. Therefore, the argument that they cannot afford to pay good wages will not avail in the least. I notice that


the two hon. Gentlemen present who are as interested as I am in this problem have a sort of joyful smile on their faces when I talk about big profits—

Mr. Mabane: The International Tea Company makes no profit.

Mr. Davies: If they do not make profits, they get hold of the money somehow or other. I now turn to another point in connection with the distributive trade, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the Debate will be good enough to answer this question. The House of Commons the other day, at the instance, I think, of the hon. Member for the Rusholme Division of Manchester (Mr. Radford), was moved beyond words that school children were compelled to do homework out of school hours; but it was not moved at all to learn, and it will not be moved to-day, I am sure, when I tell it, that there are about 50,000 children employed in distribution for a shilling or two per week out of school hours. The House of Commons, although it condemned homework, will have little or nothing to say, I am sure, in condemnation of working children for a shilling or two a week after school hours. We are a strange and an inconsistent people.
I should like to meet one argument in advance, because I can see one or two hon. Gentlemen ready for the fray. I shall be told, I suppose, that the cooperative movement, to which I have the honour to belong, has a lot of leeway to make up if it is to come up to this Resolution; but this may be said about it, that, although the co-operative movement may have its faults, like all other institutions, the conditions of employment in the co-operative movement as a whole are by far superior to those prevailing in private trades doing the same sort of business. I think that that ought to be said about the co-operative movement. If co-operative societies can carry on their business without calling upon their assistants to work for more than 48 hours a week—in some cases the hours are 44—exclusive of meal times, and can give them a fairly decent standard of livelihood and still increase its trade, I see no reason why the whole distributive trade should not be called upon to follow suit. That, I think, is an

argument of which private employers in distribution will have to take heed. The conditions to which I have alluded in the co-operative movement have been brought about by collective agreement between the trade unions and the societies, and we naturally welcome all the collective agreements that have been made recently by private enterprise with the trade unions. We wish them God-speed. But do not let us exaggerate the position. Even now, these collective agreements do not cover any very large proportion of the 2,500,000 shop assistants to whom I have referred.
The most remarkable thing of all, perhaps, in this connection, is that, so far as I understand the position, the status of shop assistants in the heart of the British Empire is lower than in any of the Empire's component parts. Shop assistants hold a better position in society, and are treated better by their employers, in almost every part of the British Empire than they are here at home. We were told only last week, for instance, from the Front Government Bench that a decree had been issued by the Governor of Malta laying down a minimum standard of wages for shop assistants in that territory, while in the Irish Free State the Government itself, within the last few days, has tabled a Bill laying down conditions of employment in relation to hours, wages, and environment in shops; so that our own Government really ought to feel a little bit ashamed of itself. It never does, of course, whatever happens in this country.
I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is here. Let me deal with his Department for a few minutes. As I have said, the Shops Acts are enforced in the main by local authorities, but local authorities do not carry out their duties in all cases. I shall be able to prove to the hon. Gentleman that the time has arrived when the Home Office ought to take a hand to see that the provisions of those Acts are enforced. We find that some of the larger authorities are performing their duties in real earnest, but reports for which I called from some 10 or a dozen local authorities show that there is no uniformity.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Quail Protection Act, 1937.
2. Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937.
3. Public Works Loans (No. 2) Act, 1937.
4. Empire Exhibition (Scotland) Order Confirmation Act, 1937.
5. Rothesay Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1937.
6. Glasgow Boundaries Order Confirmation Act, 1937.

CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I was about to say that this Motion of mine does not ask for any new legislation. That, of course, will please the representatives of the Government on the Front Bench. But we are going to press on the Home Office that they demand a copy of the annual report from each local authority to find out what they are doing in enforcing the provisions of shops legislation. By that means, we might have some uniformity of administration. Some local authorities appoint persons to be shop inspectors and nothing else. Others appoint persons who are weights and measures inspectors, sanitary inspectors, policemen, almost anybody, with the result that the job is not done properly in some districts. Then, we would like to know how many shops inspectors are employed by local authorities. Some local authorities regard this legislation as of no consequence at all, and some magistrates are even worse. When cases of violation of this law are brought before them they treat them with the utmost frivolity. In one case in London the fine was just one halfpenny. The time will arrive when this legislation will have to be enforced, just like the law relating to the inspection of coal mines, factories and trade boards. It does not do for some magistrates to be severe when the law is being broken in other spheres of life, and to treat with so much leniency those who violate this class of legislation.
I do not intend to weary the House by touching on the conditions of those people employed in the catering and allied trades. If anything, they are worse there than in shops. Hotel employés, waiters, waitresses, ushers, indeed all manner and types of employés, are, in some cases, dressed up like dolls, expected to behave like marionettes, to kowtow to their betters and to live on a meagre pittance by way of tips given to them on the sly. It would be interesting if the Minister in charge of the Debate today would tell us what became of the proposition to lay down a trade board for the catering trade. That seems to have been left in mid-air.
Shop assistants themselves are to blame for some of the bad conditions. If they organise themselves in trade unions, they will, in my view, be the most powerful of all the organisations of that kind in this country. They must understand that it is little use Parliament passing legislation to protect and defend them, unless there is an inspector or a strong trade union, or preferably both, to see that the law is implemented. Otherwise, it is a dead letter, and of no avail to them.
This Motion has not been conceived in any spirit of hostility, either to the Government or to local authorities in general. It is moved so that this vast business of distribution might come under public review, that the grievances of shop assistants might be ventilated, and, above all, that the Government might be induced to take a still more active interest in this problem and that local authorities and magistrates might not regard our shops legislation as mere scraps of ordinary paper.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Mabane: I think the House ought to be grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) for introducing this topic to-day. I hope that this Debate will lead to some very practical results. From certain points of view, it might seem an inappropriate moment to discuss wages and conditions in the distributive trades, when the Minister of Labour is engaged in negotiating with the employers and employés in the distributive trades. I do not think that is the case. I think, on the other hand, that this Debate may give some indication to the Minister of the unanimity of feeling in the distributive trades on the matters under discussion


with the Ministry itself. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has, perhaps, been a little general in some of the things he has said. He has been somewhat stern to employers in the distributive trades, and anyone who did not pay very close attention to his provisos might imagine that he was condemning employers in the trade generally. I am sure that that was not his intention. He has also been rather stern to the shop assistants themselves. I think that if he were to endeavour to recruit shop assistants for his own trade union by making speeches to them containing some of the phrases he has used this afternoon about shop assistants, he would not receive much support. I do not think that shop assistants in this country consider that their status is about the lowest in the world, as he said it was. On the other hand, the shop assistants in this country are a very dignified and self-respecting body of people, and, on the whole, their conditions of employment are not anything like as bad as one would imagine from listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman.
But he certainly was interesting, and, I am sure, correct in the brief historical survey of the distributive trades with which he started. The distributive trades have grown remarkably during the last 14 years. The employés in the distributive trades have increased from about 1,000,000 to something over 2,000,000 between 1923 and 1937. The turnover now is prodigious. I calculate—and it is only a calculation—that the turnover in the distributive trades is now something over £2,000,000,000 a year. Notwithstanding this great growth of the distributive trade it has remained an unorganised trade on both sides—on the side of the employers and on the side of the employés. There are many reasons for this. Entrance into the business of retail distribution is easy. It always has been so from the point of view of the employer, and, consequently, you get a large number of people becoming employers, capitalists in a small way, for a short time, and then going out.
Hon. Members who had some knowledge of the distributive trades before the War will know that the conditions were almost universally deplorable, and that conditions have certainly improved since then. It is only with the post-war development

on a large scale in the business of distribution that there has been any move towards the regularisation of wages and of hours. I think that it is true to say—I do not think that any employer in the distributive trades will question it—that certainly until recently the hours worked in the distributive trades were roughly the hours that the employés could be persuaded to work, and the wages paid were the lowest for which they could be obtained. Those who have knowledge of the distributive trades must agree that, since the War, and particularly during the last decade, there has been a great change both in the conditions of employment and in the wages paid, and that the two comments which I have just made with regard to earlier conditions certainly do not apply to-day over a very large part of the distributive field. It is true to say, too, that in what you may term the down-town store, the efficiently organised store, whether it be in the hands of an individual proprietor, a multiple shop proprietor or a departmental store proprietor, the hours worked are not excessive. It does not give a complete picture merely to say that in Co-operative Societies' stores the hours are 48 hours or less. In most of the kind of stores to which I refer the hours of work during the week are 48 or less. I shall have something further to say about wages a little later, but, on the whole, the wages paid in that kind of store, too, compare very favourably with wages in any industry, and certainly are on a par with, and in many cases much better than, the wages paid by co-operative societies.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman cannot produce them.

Mr. Mabane: I shall produce them a little later. One thing to remember in connection with the distributive trades when talking about conditions is that it is one of the few trades in this country in which it is a fairly universal practice to give the employés holidays with pay, and in most cases a fortnight's holiday with pay throughout the year.
Nevertheless, the distributive trade is a different trade in certain characteristics from most other trades in the country. In the first place, it is new. It is the newest industry to be developed on a large scale and it has not evidenced in its development any of the characteristics parallel with the characteristics of


developing industry in the nineteenth century. As the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate no doubt complains, the employés in the distributive trades are not organised in trade unions. At the end of his speech he condemned the shop-assistants themselves, because they have not taken measures to organise themselves, but I would equally condemn him for his inefficiency in failing to organise them. He knows perfectly well that his union, the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers, has a very small membership in the distributive trade, and he ought to take some blame upon himself for being so ineffective in organising his own trade union in the distributive trade. But it would be unfair to carry that condemnation too far, for he knows as well as I do, that the distributive trade is not one easily susceptible of organisation. It is made up of a large number of small units, of businesses employing one or two employés, and so it presents a particular difficulty to the hon. Gentleman.
There is another very important characteristic which makes organisation very difficult, and that is the high mortality of the staff from the industrial point of view. The hon. Gentleman said that a very large proportion of the people employed in the distributive trades are women. They come in fairly young and they go out fairly young, because, quite contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said, far from their being regarded as the lowest form of life, these young women prove themselves so attractive to the men of this country, that they marry with extreme rapidity and at an early age, and thus you get a high industrial mortality among women workers in the distributive trades. There is one other further difficulty in the way of organisation, and that is that there is no other industry in this country where there is such an easy progression from the lowest positions to executive positions at high remuneration. You may take the whole range of industry, and in no other industry to-day is it possible for people to begin at the bottom and so easily, on merit, to rise to the very highest positions.
It is particularly interesting to have this Debate to-day because I believe—not too early—the distributive trade is beginning to command a much wider attention, both in this House and in the country than it has ever done in the past. Until recently

the business of shopkeeping was the despised and rejected of occupations. I remember well, even when I first came to this House, that I had a difficulty in finding a fellow shopkeeper, but I now find among my fellow shopkeepers the noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and the Noble Lord the Member for Peterborough (Lord Burleigh) to say nothing of my old fishmonger friend—if I may so describe him without offence—the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies). The distributive trade is indeed acquiring a new dignity and a new importance even in this House.
This Debate may well mark the beginning of a new era in the distributive industry. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, in framing his Motion, has done badly. He has framed a Motion which, I hope, the Government will accept and which, perhaps, after certain verbal qualifications, we can all freely support. The Motion divides into three parts. With two of these parts I do not particularly intend to concern myself a great deal and I will refer to them briefly. The first part refers to
the long hours of labour, low wages, and bad conditions of employment prevalent in the distributive trades.
I am not so happy about the word "prevalent." I think that a distinction should be made. The distinction made, from certain points of view, is unfortunate. It is true to say that long hours, low wages and bad conditions obtain, on the whole, in the smaller and least efficient shops, and that good conditions, good wages and shorter hours obtain in the larger shops and in those shops, which, though not large, are either efficient or are part of a large organisation. With that qualification, I would agree with the first part of the Motion of the hon. Member.
I will say a few words about the second part of the Motion—the administration of the Acts already on the Statute Book. As he said, there are not many Acts dealing with the distributive trades, and I agree with almost all that he said about the administration of these Acts. The Acts are not at all uniformly administered. He said, and quite rightly, that in many of the larger towns the administration is good. There are inspectors


who endeavour to secure that most of the shops carry out the provisions of the Acts, but, as he also said, in the smaller places, in small county and market towns, and so on, there is virtually no inspection. I would add one other word of criticism to what he said about the administration of these Acts. It is really paradoxical that it is the biggest and the best shops which are inspected most. They are the most convenient for inspection. They are in the centre of the town. They have been there for some time. If such a report were prepared for the Home Office as that for which he asks, it would be found that the inspectors go primarily to those shops which could be well left alone, and do not go to those which ought to be inspected.
When considering this matter of inspection we ought to bear in mind one important thing—the size of the problem facing the inspectors. The hon. Gentleman said that there were 1,000,000 shops. That is a guess. He does not know, I do not know and the Board of Trade does not know, but to accept, for the sake of argument, the figure of a million, it really needs an army of inspectors to carry out effective inspection of these shops throughout the country. They have a lot to inspect. They have to see that chairs are there to sit upon and, if the hon. Member knows the last Act, that the assistants know that they are entitled to sit upon them. They have to inspect the rooms provided for meals, and to secure that the provisions relating to early closing, half-holidays and hours of juveniles are properly carried out, and so on. They have a very large task to perform, even if the legislation is not very extensive. The hon. Gentleman was not making an unreasonable request in asking the Home Office to call for some sort of report on the administration of these Acts.
I now turn to the other part of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, and particularly deal with the matter of wages. It is the matter of wages that is the immediately urgent problem, because, as the Under-Secretary of State knows, the Ministry of Labour is at present engaged in negotiations of a most important character with employers and employés. Before I embark upon that matter, I would say a word to the hon. Member for Westhoughton. In so far as he talked about low wages in the distributive industry,

he left untouched one necessary consideration, and that was, Whose fault is it that the wages are low? I was glad to hear that he did not blame the employers, and, as I shall go on to show, in so far as wages are low in the distributive trades, it is not the fault of the organised employers. What is the present position with regard to wages in the distribute trades? It was in the spring of 1936 that the Ministry of Labour began to interest itself in the problem of wages and conditions in the distributive trades. A meeting was called of representatives of the distributive trade organisations and was addressed by the Minister of Labour, the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the post, and after further meetings, there was a historic meeting on 14th April this year. On 14th April, for the first time in the history of the distributive trades of this country, representatives of all the distributive trade organisations on the employers' side, and of the distributive trade unions met together in the Ministry of Labour. Never before has there been such a meeting.
The result of that meeting was that a committee was set up composed of seven representatives from the employers and seven representatives from the employés to consider whether together, employers and employés, they could devise a scheme to be applied to the distributive trades, to secure the improvement of wages and conditions to a standard satisfactory to the general opinion of the country. For the initiation of these meetings the Minister of Labour deserves the highest credit. In those early days there were many suggestions going about. There were rumours that the trade board machinery might be applied. In a statement by the Minister of Labour the suggestion of the possibility of a trade board was made. I can see no really good reason why a trade board should not be applied to the distributive trades, on general grounds, but I can see particular reasons why it should not be applied. In the first place, a certain stigma attaches to a trade board, even to-day. In the second place, trade board machinery was never intended to be applied to an industry of this size, employing 2,000,000 people, and employing so much capital.
We have recently heard no more rumours about a trade board. Instead, the Ministry of Labour suggested that the


employers' and the employés' organisations should get together and make voluntary agreements, relating to wages. The employers' organisations, although not averse to doing their best to work with the trade unions in making voluntary agreements, indicated from the outset that they would not regard voluntary agreements between employers' associations and employés' trade unions as a final solution of this problem, in the first place, because the trade unions are not fully representative, but are only representative of small sections of the employés engaged in the distributive trades. On the other side, it is only fair to say that the employers' organisations in the distributive trades are by no means fully representative of all the trades concerned. Therefore, if an agreement were made, there would be no guarantee that it would be effective over the whole trade.
In the second place, there is the point made by the hon. Member, that if particular bodies of employers were prepared to enter into voluntary agreements, binding them to pay certain wages and to observe certain conditions, then all the employers in the same sort of trade who were outside that voluntary agreement would be at an advantage. In that connection there is, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, an agreement which has been made with the multiple grocers. I think I am correct in saying that the Minister has rebuked the Grocers' Federation for not taking part in that agreement. The Grocers' Federation is a Federation which represents the small individual grocers, whereas the agreement as to wages is with the multiple grocers. I do not think it is altogether just to blame the Grocers' Federation for standing out, because if that Federation had entered into the agreement there could be no sort of guarantee either that their Members would have observed it—they could easily withdraw from the Federation—and certainly there would have been no obligation on all the small grocers outside the Federation to observe the agreement.

Mr. Alexander: That proves the case for a trade board.

Mr. Mabane: If the right hon. Gentleman will let me proceed I will show that it does not do so. The employers' organisations,

as I have said, were never prepared to regard voluntary agreements as a final solution of the problem, and to-day it is almost paradoxical, certainly it is a situation unique in the annals of industry in this country, that the largest and most important organisations of employers in the distributive trades, including the co-operative societies, are asking the Ministry to introduce legislation to enforce by statutory enactment wages and conditions on a national basis. I think that fact ought to make it quite clear that it is not the fault of the employers if wages and conditions in the distributive trades are less good than we would wish them to be. Meanwhile, voluntary agreements are being entered into; but those agreements are regarded by the employers as only stepping stones to ultimate statutory enactment. I have here copies of various voluntary agreements, and I will read the preamble of two of them because they are very illuminating. Here is the preamble to the famous Lewis's Agreement:
In entering into this agreement, the parties thereto "—
that is, the employers and the employed—
are actuated by a desire to conform with public policy in the matter of the regulation of labour conditions in the distributive trades, and to promote the proper and effective regulation of such conditions by agreement.
That is a remarkable declaration from employers and employed, working together. Then there is the multiple grocery agreement, the preamble of which reads:
The parties hereto have entered into this agreement as a step towards the ultimate objective of establishing that a national standard of wages and working conditions in the distributive trades shall be statutorily enforceable.
Those preambles represent a very remarkable attitude of mind on the part of both employers and employed. So far the Ministry of Labour has been reluctant to respond to these requests for the statutory enforcement of wages and conditions upon the industry, notwithstanding their almost complete unanimity, certainly on the employers side, and I think one can almost equally say on the employés side, in so far as the employés side is organised.
I can understand the reluctance of the Ministry of Labour, because the Ministry has very difficult problems to face before it can present to this House a Bill which would achieve the objects set out in these agreements. It is necessary to tell the


truth about this matter. A dilemma presents itself to the Ministry of Labour. If wages and conditions acceptable to this House and the country were proposed, then I fear that large numbers of small shopkeepers would be forced out of business. On the other hand, if the position of the small shopkeeper is to be protected, it can only be done by presenting to this House wages and conditions which I do not think would secure public consent. That is the dilemma with which I think the Ministry of Labour is confronted. I think the Minister of Labour looks forward to the day when there will be a universal standard throughout the distributive trades, and I am hoping that this Debate, if we are reinforced sufficiently from the other side, will do something to persuade the Ministry of Labour to move a little further towards the realisation of what I can properly call the ideal.
The Ministry, clearly, must walk warily, but the Minister must have been surprised to discover so far the degree of unanimity existing in the trade, certainly among the best and most efficient employers. The Ministry is naturally rather nervous at touching what must be a tricky piece of legislation. It is entitled to know that there is real agreement in the industry on this particular issue before legislation can be proposed to this House. My view is that the Ministry wants to be persuaded, and certainly my desire in intervening in the Debate was the hope that I might do something, as one who can claim the closest association with most of the organisations in the distributive trades, to persuade the Ministry of Labour, as powerfully as I can, to move towards the statutory enforcement of wages and conditions.
Perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words about what we who are closely concerned with this problem of distribution regard as desirable features of any statutory enactment. The first thing that we want is statutory enforcement of universal conditions. Side by side with that statutory enforcement we want the maximum possible flexibility in the arrangements as between trades and districts, and as much self-government as possible for particular divisions of the industry which, as the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) knows,

are so difficult to define. For example, the rate of wages which would be a fair rate in London, a provincial town and a small market town would be substantially different. Again, wages in a business where the skill needed is small, such as a fixed price store, would be different from the wages in a business where high skill is required, such as a fitting department. Therefore, flexibility is needed. What is necessary also is one set of machinery covering the whole of the distributive trades in a co-ordinated way. These are the conditions that I think are desirable if wages and conditions in the distributive trades are to be what the House would regard as proper and satisfactory.
I am satisfied that if the Minister will bring to the House legislation including proposals of the character I have outlined—I have many assurances of support from important organisations in the distributive trades—he can be assured that it will receive nearly if not completely unanimous support from the distributive trades. I would urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary this consideration, that unless action is taken to give statutory power to these wage agreements, the voluntary agreements already entered into will be put in jeopardy. As he knows, certain voluntary agreements have been made in particular firms, as in the case of Lewis's and Owen Owens, in particular industries, such as the grocery trade, and proposals have been made in other industries, such as the tailoring and catering trades. If there is not general statutory enforcement of these wages and conditions I fear that the voluntary agreements may well be put in jeopardy, and I am sure that everyone would deplore that. If the Debate does anything to move us nearer to the regularisation of wages and conditions in the distributive trades I am sure the hon. Member for Westhoughton will feel himself well rewarded.
I should like to mention one thing which I think, is cognate and important. We are interesting ourselves in the problem of distribution. We want to secure better conditions for those employed in the distributive trades, but we can never effectively do that until we know more about the industry itself. The hon. Member for Westhoughton gave certain facts about the distributive trade. They were not really facts; they were guesses. The facts


are not known, and it is becoming urgent that a census of distribution should be taken. We must have knowledge of the industry. The most simple facts are not known. We do not know how many shops there are. We do not know how many employés there are in the retail trades. We do not know the wage rates or the hours. The hon. Member for Westhoughton is a keen supporter of the taking of a census of distribution, but the right hon. Member for Hillsborough is one of its most bitter opponents.

Mr. Alexander: No.

Mr. Mabane: One of its most keen opponents.

Mr. Alexander: Informed.

Mr. Mabane: I think the adjective is appropriate. He is one of the most informed opponents. The right hon. Gentleman knows too much about the Cooperative Society to desire that the facts should be more widely known.

Mr. Alexander: That is a very unjust statement, because the hon. Member must know that a complete census of co-operative production is available and published. It is a most unfair remark to make.

Mr. Mabane: The right hon. Gentleman knows that only recently his organisation appointed an economist, who at a meeting of the British Association suggested very forcibly that a census of distribution should be taken, and I believe that his speech was not regarded with favour by the Co-operative Society. It is remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman, whom we look upon as one of the leaders of progressive thought, should be opposed to the taking of a census of distribution when every reputable economist and statistician in the country would welcome it very much indeed. I feel that if the Ministry could persuade the Board of Trade to look favourably on the project of a census of distribution, it would do very much to assist itself in its own task.
The problem of distribution is, I am sure, of increasing importance. The cost of distribution in this country is very high; I am certain that it is higher than it need be. Therefore, the more attention that can be concentrated on the problem in this House and in the country the more

likelihood is there that the costs of distribution will be reduced without doing any harm to those engaged in the business of distribution either on the employing or employed side. Indeed, hon. Members have only to think of this problem to realise that nothing can so effectively assist in a reduction of the cost of living as a reduction in the costs of distribution. I hope the public will pay some attention to this Debate and that henceforth they will give the closest possible attention to the whole business of distribution. At the present time the public does not know the ways in which very often it increases costs to itself. The public is inclined to make rather absurd demands in the way of service, rather absurd demands for shopping convenience both in the hours shops shall be open and the hours shop assistants shall be worked. If we can direct the fierce light of exact knowledge on the business of distribution we shall not only achieve the object set out in the Motion, which I, for one, shall be glad to support, but we shall also be able to secure that the people of this country can buy the things it is necessary for them to buy at a great deal less cost than they have been able to do in the past.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Jagger: I wish to support the Motion. I am acutely conscious that the Mover of the Motion, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) and myself do not present that starved, overdriven and underfed kind of individual referred to in the Motion. If the portly and well-groomed Member for Westhoughton is to be exhibit "A," and the still more portly but less well-groomed Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger) is exhibit "B," I do not think we should get an unbiased jury to give a verdict of anything but "not proven." Still it must be remembered that the hon. Member for Westhoughton and myself were the first generation in our families to go behind the shop counter. Many generations of our people worked on the land, and we were fortunate enough to get out of the industry before that great scourge, phthisis, which is fatal to a higher percentage of people in the distributive trades than anywhere else, laid hold of us. Our present appearance has been acquired during the more profitable years since we left the distributive trade.
For over a 100 years the question of the condition of shop assistants has been attracting attention. I was looking the other day at Mr. and Mrs. Sydney Webb's "History of Trade Unionism," and I saw it was mentioned there that the shop assistants of Sheffield in September, 1825, petitioned for early closing, and that in August of that year the "London Observer" tells us that the shop men to the linen drapers, silk mercers and hosiers and lace men had petitioned their employers praying that fixed and rational hours should be appointed for attending to their business, as under the present system of labour they were debarred from all intellectual improvement or amusement. The "London Observer" of that day, I am glad to see, in a leader commented on the modesty and reasonableness of the shop assistants' demands. I should like to quote something which appeared about 15 years later, in 1839. It was a manifesto issued by a gentleman who called himself "Philanthropos," and it is headed" The Linen Drapers' Magna Charta, or, An Easy and Pleasant Mode of Diminishing Shopkeepers' Confinement."
Only can assistants brave the gusts of ill-fortune by demanding that mental superiority which will provide a livelihood anywhere or everywhere. Let not employers be enraged if assistants think and speak for themselves. Who shall say that 16 or 18 hours of toil is not an infringement of the laws of nature? We assistant drapers think not to form a system which shall dissipate sin and create universal virtue, but we will try how, by banding together, we can rescue ourselves from debility of body, the iron bondage of the animal propensities, and the cruel exactions of society. From a practical point of view the 200,000 assistants whose expenses amount to twelve million pounds, and who thus support largely the revenues of the State, have a reason to seek protection and representation from the Government. All the interference we seek from the Government is a law making it compulsory to close drapers' shops at seven. But though circumstances prevent our rulers providing for our welfare, will not the diseased lungs, which have their origin in confinement in a shop from eight in the morning till eleven at night, cause the subjects of our severity to unite and form a moral force which shall extinguish such cruelty?
During the 100 years since then we have been trying two methods, one an appeal to the Government, and the other, an appeal to the people to organise themselves so that they might compel what the Government did not legislate to give. It

was somewhat unkind of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) to taunt the hon. Member for Westhoughton with his lack of success in organising the distributive workers into a trade union. After all, he and those associated with him have been trying to do this for 40 years, but I have never noticed that we have had any help from the hon. Member for Huddersfield. We started with a handful, and we are 200,000 to-day. When the hon. Member for Huddersfield has done as much to organise the distributive trades he can begin to criticise the hon. Member for Westhoughton for his comparative failure. There is a good deal of which I could speak which has happened during the last 100 years, but if I did so I should detain the House as long as the hon. Member for Huddersfield.
Let me come to the years 1930–31 when we had the report of the Select Committee. There is in that report sufficient evidence of everything that has been said by the Mover of the Motion about the bad conditions, low wages and long hours which exist in big shops as well as in small shops. These conditions are such that within the last month a big firm in the city of London has had to close down because it would not recognise the trade union and was paying 38s. per week for a 52-hour week. I contend that it is quite a superficial view of this question which suggests that the employés in all big shops get shorter hours and good conditions of labour and that in all the little shops they get long hours and bad conditions of labour. No such general rule can be applied. It is true that the larger shops do tend to be better on the whole, but that is because it has been possible to organise employés in the larger shops into effective units while it is not possible to organise the one, two or three men who work in a small shop. You have therefore bad employers who are reasonably decent employers, and who might be much better, but who are prevented from doing better because there is a large body of employers whose only limit of exploitation is the fear of the punishment which can be administered if they carry their exploitations beyond certain limits. The decent employer in the face of this naturally says that there are limits beyond which he cannot go.
I regret that the Mover of the Motion did not say something about legislation


because I consider that this question wants tackling in two ways, first, by some additional legislation, and secondly, by overhauling the machinery which exists to implement existing legislation. It is fairly well accepted to-day that the great multiple shops, the stores, the Cooperative Society and the chain stores, together do something less than 40 per cent. of the total distributive trade of the country, and that 60 per cent. at least is still done by the one-man shop.

Mr. Markham: What is the authority of the hon. Member for that statement?

Mr. Jagger: My authority is my own calculations. I agree broadly with the hon. Member about the total amount of the distributive trade. I was able to get the turnover of the company shops and the co-operative stores, and by a subtraction, I arrived at the conclusion that about 12½ per cent. is done by the cooperative movement, about 27 per cent. by the companies, and the remainder by the one-man shops. I do not claim that that is a mathematically exact statement, but broadly it gives the position. Neither the hon. Member for West-houghton, myself nor the Archangel Gabriel could ever hope to carry trade union organisation into a large proportion of those small shops.
If the majority of the employés were in the large stores, I should be very much inclined to agree with the argument that we ought to overcome the difficulty by negotiating agreements between the trade unions and employers' organisation. But the overwhelming majority of those one-man shops, in spite of what the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, are outside any kind of organisation, and the hon. Member himself admitted that probably they soon would be if being in an organisation meant giving decent conditions of labour and decent wages to their employés. I have been very much interested in the attempts which the Minister of Labour has been making, and I have admired the optimism of the Minister as to the success that is likely to attend his efforts. I should hate to disturb his self-complacency, but frankly I say to him and to the hon. Member for Huddersfield that we shall have to wait a long time before any satisfactory solution of this question is arrived at on the lines followed by the Minister of Labour.
Let me now pursue the point I was making about the necessity for fresh legislation and the implementation of existing legislation. If there were introduced a standard of inspection and enforcement comparable to that of the factories inspection, a tremendous revolution would be brought about; but in the case of shops, the inspection is sporadic, and is never carried out except upon complaints. I think I am justified in saying that there is no routine inspection. I am sure that there is not a single shops inspector in the country who could to-day say which of the employés in certain establishments come under the Shops Acts. As a matter of fact, £2,000 or £3,000 had to be spent in getting a decision in the House of Lords before anybody could say, with regard to refreshment houses, who did and who did not come within the scope of Shops Acts.
The position as regards inspection is deplorable. I do not think there are more than half-a-dozen authorities under the Shops Act who have appointed as shops inspectors people with special knowledge, and I do not think there are half-a-dozen who have made the job of shops inspector a full-time one. The weights and measures inspectors are given the additional duty, the sanitary inspectors are given the additional duty, but more often still, it is a police sergeant's job, which has to be done in his spare time. We cannot be satisfied as long as the administration of the law continues in that way. There is no central direction and no co-ordination. Some of the Orders under the Shops Acts have to be confirmed by the Home Office, and some of them do not. All of them ought to be so confirmed, and then at least the Home Office would know what it does not know now, what Orders are being made by Shops Acts authorities throughout the country. For instance, there is the question of shops at seaside resorts. The assistants are deprived of their half-holiday for one-third of the year by the issuing of an Order, which is very often issued by the shopkeepers themselves in their capacity as councillors. The compensation for that is the fortnight's holiday which the hon. Member for Huddersfield has already told us the shop assistants get in any circumstances and almost without exception.

Mr. Mabane: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but he has been


persistently misrepresenting me. I think he is going too far when he suggests that I ever said that a fortnight's holiday with pay was universal for all shop assistants throughout the country. I did not say anything of the sort.

Mr. Jagger: I regret it very much if I have misrepresented the hon. Member, but when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT, I think he will see that he implied that a fortnight's holiday with pay was general. If he did not do so, I am glad that we have had the correction.

Mr. Mabane: There is a difference between "general" and "universal."

Mr. Jagger: If the difference is only between "general" and "universal," the hon. Member has a very tender skin if he objects to my interpretation. There is, then, the question of the half-holiday beginning at 1.30. Surely the time has come when there ought to be for shop assistants a half-holiday commensurate at least with the manual workers' half-holiday, beginning not later than 12 o'clock. Failing legislation, I think that probably the best thing the Home Office could do would be to require that every year every authority under the Shops Act should prepare and present to the Home Office a complete report, giving the number of its inspectors, the number of shops they have to inspect, the number of shops inspected, the number of infractions of the law that have been discovered, the number of warnings given and the number of penalties imposed. I submit that if that were done, the Home Office would find it a simple matter to issue to the House an annual report, the mere issue of which would have a tremendous effect on the more backward authorities under the Shops Acts.
With regard to penalties, a great deal could be done if, instead of the present maximum penalties, minimum penalties were introduced. I have no objection to both maximum and minimum penalties, but anybody who has read of cases of prosecutions for infractions of the Shops Acts must realise that in nine cases out of ten, the penalties are contemptuous. The only remedy for that is to have, along with the maximum penalty a minimum penalty which must be imposed upon the offender upon conviction. Some municipalities do issue, through their councils, the sort of reports of which I have spoken.

For instance, I have in my possession the annual report of the shops inspectors department of the Gateshead Corporation. If reports of that nature were sent to the Home Office, the Home Office could prepare for the House an annual report which would serve as an example to the Shops Acts authorities throughout the country. I hope that the Debate this afternoon will lead to very much greater attention being given to the question of the legal protection of shop assistants in their relations with their employers. If the only effect of the Debate is to lead to the issuing of the annual report which I have mentioned, I shall consider that it has been well worth while.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Markham: If the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) had been in his place, I should have taken the opportunity of congratulating him upon raising a matter involving such wide issues; but as he is not present, I can but deplore the fact that he has consistently been absent from the House from the moment he finished his speech. It really is a signal discourtesy to the House for a Motion of this magnitude to be moved and then to be neglected. I have heard of various mothers deserting their children, but never have I seen such a blatant example of desertion with so many would-be mothers looking on.
The speech to which we have just listened brought out very clearly the necessity for much more information on this subject. I was very interested in the estimate which the hon. Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger) gave of the proportion of what one might call the large shops and the small shops. I confess that I was unable to follow his reasoning. I understood him to claim that chain stores, multiple shops, down-town shops and cooperative stores constitute only 40 per cent. of the total distributive trade of this country. Obviously, the first thing to do is to ask the hon. Member how he defines distributive trade. The definition of the distributive trade must cover all those trades which are engaged in distribution.

Mr. Jagger: I was referring to the total retail distributive trade of this country.

Mr. Markham: That may be so, but the turnover of a great part of the trade is not known, and the hon. Member's figure for one of the most important sections must be a pure guess.

Mr. Jagger: Does the hon. Member see the Bank of England monthly returns?

Mr. Markham: Yes, but they are not representative, nor do they give the information which the hon. Member implies they do give. I repeat my statement that the hon. Member's figures must be a pure guess, and cannot be substantiated.
Let us then turn to the question of a census of distribution, a matter which was raised in the House as recently as January last. The present Minister of Transport who was then at the Board of Trade turned down the suggestion on the ground that it would cost £500,000. It appears that he based that estimate upon the cost of a similar investigation in the United States, but everybody knows that when they get a statistical idea in the United States they go mad on it and apply enormous sums to the most fantastic investigations. This particular investigation in the United States is a case in point. There is, I contend, no reason to suppose that a census of distribution in this country would cost more than £50,000 to £60,000. To give an example of how effectively information of this kind can be procured, I would mention the recent publication by the Food Council of the costs and profits of retail milk distribution in Great Britain. That publication includes elaborate sections dealing with profits, personnel, costs, and so forth, compiled from information provided by United Dairies, Limited, the London Co-operative Society and various proprietary concerns, and it cost under £500 I fail to see why a census of industry could not be secured in this country for the comparatively reasonable sum of £50,000 to £60,000.
If we had such a census we should be able to speak in this House with more knowledge of the subject which we are discussing to-day. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken has emphasised the ignorance which we and the country are in with regard to the great problem of the distributive trades. Where I quarrel with the Mover of this Motion is in regard to the singularly ungenerous and unjust terms in which the Motion is drawn. There is no hint in it that the Government have done a single thing to improve conditions in retail trade during the past five or six years. But I think it can be said without fear of contradiction that such improvements as there

have been are due mainly, if not entirely, to the initiative and patience of the industrial diplomats of the Ministry of Labour. Naturally the bouquets go to the Ministers concerned, but the brunt of the work has been borne by the officials. If we take the record of the Government in this respect over the last few years we have no reason to be ashamed of it. The Shops Act, 1934, which has been so scornfully referred to, has definitely improved conditions for every shopworker under the age of 18. The only instances given in this House of violations of the terms of that Act, are exceptions which have been followed by prosecutions. I think there have not been more than 2,300 prosecutions per year under all the Shops Acts for the last three or four years, and considering that there are over 1,000,000 shops, that is an extraordinarily small proportion.

Mr. Leslie: Because the Acts are not being carried out.

Mr. Markham: Then the Government assisted in passing the Sunday Trading Restriction Act, and I think hon. Members will agree that it is a thoroughly good Act, and has contributed to a considerable improvement in conditions. What is the main obstacle to the extension of this system to the whole of the trades? I quote an authority in the subject, the hon. Member for Westhoughton, and these were his words on the Sunday Trading Restriction Act, 1936:
You cannot effectively regulate hours of employment in shops without trade union organisation. No law is of any avail unless there is an organisation to implement it and at the present time there is no trade unionism in shop life, apart from … the Shop Assistants Union … and the union to which I belong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1936; cols. 2194–95, Vol. 308.]
If hon. Members opposite say that it is impossible to regulate hours of employment effectively until there is effective trade unionism in the industry, then all I can say is that they are putting off the chances of improvement in the retail distributive trades until the Greek Kalends, because trade unionism in that industry is advancing more slowly than the industry itself. The industry has advanced by 100 per cent. in the last 20 years, but trade unionism in the industry has not advanced by 100 per cent. If hon. Members opposite go to the Ministry of Labour and say that nothing can be done until


trade unionism is omnipotent in the retail distributive trades, then, indeed, a Vote of Censure on them might be moved with some justification. But the Government do not take that line. They see that the great difficulty in the industry is that there are no unions competent to speak for the workers. I say that with great respect. There are unions in the industry but, admittedly, they do not cover one in 10 of the workers.
The question, therefore, is, what can be done by joint negotiation? I regret that the Mover of the Motion in the one tribute which he paid to the Government for what they have done should have added a warning that he was only holding his fire, presumably until the Christmas holidays are over. That, surely, is the limit of un-generousness. I think that the hon. Gentleman might have been at least a little generous. He might have admitted that the Government have done more in this last year in respect of general agreements than any previous Government. Those are facts which can be checked by reference to the Ministry of Labour Gazette, but I do not wish to go over ground already covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane). The plain truth of the matter is that there has been a great improvement in the retail distributive trades since 1934, and credit for it should be given generously to the Government. I agree that some credit is due to the employers, but the initiation of these joint councils was primarily due to the Government and any amount of hard work was put in by those whom I have described as the industrial diplomats of the Ministry of Labour before the employers and employés could be brought together on a negotiating basis.
I do not think it fair in reference to a great industry like this to say, as the Motion says, that the conditions have deteriorated without making some reference to the improvements which have taken place in the situation. This industry has doubled the number of its employés in 20 years, and has seen the number of its unemployed halved in the last four years. That is a striking indication of the way in which the Government's general policy has benefited industry. In February, 1933, the percentage of unemployed in the industry was 14, and it has consistently declined since then, and the latest

figure available, that for November, 1937, is a percentage of 7.7. In any Motion of this kind those figures ought to be taken into account in relation to other things, and I say again that tremendous credit is due to the Government for the vast improvement in general conditions in the distributive trades.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the hon. Member allow me to intervene?

Mr. Markham: Perhaps my next sentence will ease the hon. Gentleman's mind. I realise, like him, that there are scandalous cases of long hours and bad conditions, and we are anxious, and I am sure the Government are anxious, to see those conditions improved. The question is, how can it be done? As far as my experience goes, local authorities are not to be trusted with the carrying out of Acts of Parliament of this importance. That is my profound conviction. I do not see any reason why the Factories Acts, for example, are handed over to a special body of inspectors, while the Shops Acts which cover, as far as we know at present, a greater number of people, are handed over to unenthusiastic amateurs, appointed by unenthusiastic local authorities. We ought to have a system of inspection based upon the system under the Factories Acts. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield in appealing to the Government to see whether statutory powers cannot be taken to cover the whole of these trades, so that throughout the length and breadth of the land we shall have decent hours and good wages, and conditions which will ensure quick promotion from the lower ranks to the higher.

5.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Butler): I think it will be convenient for me at this stage to state the view of the Government. I shall endeavour, following my usual practice on these occasions, to retain the record of making the shortest speech in the Debate, but this is rather a larger subject than those which I have had to tackle on some previous occasions, and I must ask the indulgence of the House, if I take a little longer than usual to deal with it. The hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is well known for his interest in this subject. We would expect him to raise this question,


not only because of his own honourable association with it, but also because of his experience at the Home Office. He must not think, however, that the Government regard his Motion solely as a spur to themselves. We prefer to regard it as a pat on the back for what we have done, and we are confirmed in that impression by the series of remarkable tributes which have been paid to the work performed by the industrial relations department of the Government in framing agreements. If, then, we take this Motion as a form of encouragement to the Government, I can say at the outset that we would not wish to advise hon. Members on this side to oppose it. We should prefer to regard it as being passed and as the view of the House. I think I can best prove that the tributes that have been paid by the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham) to the work done in this sphere are correct, by quoting some observations made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in the Debate on the Estimates of his Department. He referred to the introduction, to a greater extent, of the atmosphere and the machinery of collective bargaining in what he described as the greatest of all series of trades in employment value—the distributive trades of the country—and he went on to say:
We have had long discussions and during those discussions facts have been brought to the notice of the employers and several new agreements have been reached."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1937; cols. 198–99, Vol. 326.]
The discussions which are now taking place in relation to the distributive trade have in view a more comprehensive treatment of the conditions of shop assistants than has hitherto been attempted. It may help hon. Members to remind them of the division of functions in this matter between the Home Office and the Ministry of Labour. Apart from answering certain questions which have been put to me, I shall refer chiefly to what I have described as the more comprehensive treatment of the conditions of shop workers. The Home Office, as hon. Members will realise, administers the Shops Acts, which deal with hours, sanitation, seats, mealtimes, holidays, and so on. What we have in mind in these discussions are these broad questions which fall for our consideration—wages, conditions of employment, and so forth, many

of the vital questions that were referred to by the hon. Member opposite.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane), who, with the hon. Member for South Nottingham, made such excellent contributions to this Debate, referred in some detail to conferences which have taken place. Among the many conferences which have taken place to stimulate the consideration of unemployment and working conditions was one of all the organisations concerned with shop employment. This was followed by a further discussion between employers and trade union representatives, who responded to the Minister's request to frame proposals for the effective regulation of conditions by the forming of two committees, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland. The object of the formation of these committees was to work out a scheme to be laid before the organisations with a view to an ultimate agreed scheme being laid before the Minister, and the present position is that many meetings have been held, that general conferences will be held in the New Year of the trade organisations, and that meanwhile each organisation is considering the proposals.
That is the present position. Some hon. Members may feel a sense of impatience that, for instance to-night, I am unable to say that a complete plan has been evolved, but when we examine the complexity of the distributive trades, we ought to express gratification that for the first time in our history the two sides have been brought together to tackle this colossal task, to use the adjective of the hon. Member who moved the Motion. I have tried to outline for the benefit of the House the difference in functions between the two Departments particularly involved. It might be well to give them some idea of what the term "distributive trades" means. At this time, when we are all buying, or ought to be buying, our Christmas presents for our friends and relations, we walk along the streets of our great cities and towns, and as we do so we can gain some idea of the many different shops, trades, and organisations which form the distributive trades.
Let me give some idea of what they contain. There are booksellers, furniture trades, drapers, ironmongers, bakers, credit traders, fish fryers, fishmongers, grocery and provision dealers, meat


traders, retail newsagents, confectioners, tobacconists, co-operative organisations—so ably represented on the benches opposite—photographic equipment, retail fruit traders, stationers, and wireless retailers. Those are some of the organisations, not to talk of the many unions which represent those who work in these particular trades. Hon. Members will see that to achieve an immediate result with this vast and complex agglomeration of industries must be very difficult indeed.

Mr. Mabane: Is there not agreement between all those?

Mr. Butler: There has been agreement to negotiate, to get together and to discuss the question, but there has not yet been a final plan produced by all the distributive trades to settle the whole of the conditions. I will refer later to some of the agreements that have been made. Meanwhile, I am just referring to the getting together, to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield signified his assent.
I should like to deal now with one or two points that have been raised. One was a statement made by the hon. Member opposite on the subject of shop assistants. He said, "Do not let us exaggerate the position," and I want to correct one or two impressions that he may have made. He said that the hours of work in shops were very bad indeed, and I am not going to claim that they are completely satisfactory, but I would like to put in conditions safeguarding the phrase and to say that, while no doubt a considerable number of assistants may be kept on after closing hours, the closing hours do in fact have a tremendous influence in limiting the hours of work. In the second place, the hon. Member suggested that there was over-working of young girls of 14 and over, but following the committee's recommendations, to which he made reference, and since the passing of the Shops Act of 1934, the hours of work of persons under 18 have been limited to 48 per week, and this has altered the whole situation so far as young workers are concerned. I am not attempting to deny that there are bad conditions, but I would limit some of the statements that have been made.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield also put a question, as did the hon. Member

for South Nottingham, on the subject of a census of distribution, alluding to the trades as a whole. I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been in communication with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, and that he, the hon. Member, is endeavouring to obtain the views of representative commercial and industrial associations on this subject, with a view to bringing a deputation perhaps to the President, and my right hon. Friend will be interested to hear what progress has been achieved by the hon. Member.

Mr. Markham: Can the hon. Member give us any further information as to the possible cost of a census of distribution?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid I cannot at this stage. Large figures have been quoted, particularly from other countries, and I would rather not tie myself down to a figure at this stage, particularly as my right hon. Friend wishes to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield has to say on the subject.
I wish here to pay a tribute to the spirit in which those parties to whom the Minister has appealed have given their co-operation. I have referred to the discussions taking place, and it is fitting to reflect that this co-operation which is being offered by both sides is being given according to the best traditions of cooperation in industry. I should like to express the satisfaction of the Minister at the spirit which prevails. The hon. Member opposite made reference to the report of the Select Committee on Shop Assistants. I was interested, in reading the report of that committee, to notice what it said about the absence of organisation among the workers in the distributive trades. It referred to the consequent inability of the workers to speak with a collective voice in matters affecting conditions, and it went on to say:
Your Committee would like very much to see some machinery set up which would bring employers and employed into closer touch with each other and promote joint discussion in the settlement of questions affecting their mutual interests.
We feel that the steps that we have taken show for the first time that community of interest has been established, and that this is a definite step towards a determination to achieve some results. Moreover, the mere fact of getting these parties together has provided a very welcome and important education in what is


wanted and an awakening of interest in the improvement of conditions. So far, one can say, so good.
Hon. Members have raised various points about the possibility of statutory action, and I would acknowledge here that it is the considered view of all the organisations taking part in these discussions that the circumstances of the trade are such as to make it impossible to have effective regulation of conditions without statutory action, and that without statutory protection those who wish to improve their own conditions cannot be safeguarded against unfair competition. That, I think, is a fair statement of the attitude of the parties concerned. This cannot be denied, but when the vast field to be covered is visualised, it is obvious that even statutory action, to be effective, requires the active co-operation of the greatest possible number of employers and workpeople, and it is that co-operation which we are out to achieve. There have been complaints about State interference, but those who complain forget that bad conditions cannot be tolerated and that the only way to avoid such interference is to show willlingness themselves to join with others to eradicate these bad conditions. This applies both to employers and workpeople, and it is unfortunate that some efforts which have been made by organisations to improve conditions in the trade by voluntary action should be frustrated by those who will not join and play their part.
In the face of these conditions, and in spite of the fear of unfettered competition which was referred to by the hon. Member, yet some agreements have been made already, of which I should like here to show our appreciation. One has been in operation for 14 years, between the London Employers' Association and the Shop Assistants Union; there are agreements with the Co-operative movement, well-known to hon. Members opposite; and there is a recent agreement, covering multiple grocery shops, which affects nearly 100,000 workpeople in the distributive trades. We should like to welcome all these agreements. We recognise that those who have made them feel that the agreements should be fortified by statutory action, and there seems to be on this subject agreement generally among the organisations. We realise that there is a reluctance among them to combine themselves together in advance

of statutory action, but we hope for a sufficient amount of voluntary cooperation to make the area in which compulsion must be considered as narrow as possible. I hope that when the time comes for the Minister to receive the considered views as the result of these discussions which are now taking place, the House will support him if he brings forward Measures which will attempt to deal with the conditions in the trades to which I have been referring. I feel sure the House will realise that they can rely upon the Minister to take all steps open to him in this connection.
Now I want to say a word about the administration of the Shops Act, which has been referred to also in this Debate. I have noticed that there have been criticisms of the administration of the Shops Act. I would remind the House that the Home Office has recently issued circulars to local authorities, drawing their attention to the necessity for good administration, and I think these circulars will have effect. I would also remind the House that the Home Office has been, and will be, ready to take up individual complaints from local authorities. One could spend a lot of time describing such efforts as have been made by them.
I have been asked whether the Government would call for an annual report of the administration of these Acts by local authorities. I can say that, in the light of this Debate, the Home Secretary will consider whether he can take any action in consultation with local authorities to improve the enforcement of the present law. I trust that will show that we are as desirous as hon. Members to see these Acts properly administered. At the same time, we naturally cannot accept all the strictures which have been put forward in this Debate, since we think that they tend to exaggerate the position. I hope that, while maintaining my reputation for brevity, I have covered many of the many points that have been put forward. This Motion is one which the House might well approve, because it approves action that is being taken to assist traders in the better regulation of their conditions.

6.17 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: I think that all of us will have welcomed the Minister's promise that steps will be taken immediately to see that those laws which are already in force are carried out. I would like to draw the


Minister's attention to two points in that regard. One is with respect to seats for shop assistants. It was recognised by this House as long ago as 1899 that it was desirable that female assistants should have seats provided, upon which they could sit when they were not serving. I would ask hon. Members whether, when they have done any shopping in the West End of London, they have ever taken any trouble to see whether those seats are provided. I have taken a great deal of trouble over the matter. I have visited every large store in the West End and have often asked the shop assistants whether they have seats upon which they can sit. I first ask a girl when she is alone and then in the presence of the buyer in charge of the department. It is an interesting thing, and one which one cannot ignore, that in a large number of cases, if you get the assistant by herself where she cannot be overheard and where she believes she is in no danger of your repeating what she says, she will tell you that not only are seats not provided, but that, if they were, her life would not be tolerable if she sat down. If you get the shop assistant with the buyer of the department present, she will always tell you with a bright smile on her face that she is very comfortable indeed, that there are plenty of seats if she wants to sit on them, and that, after all, there is not very much time in which to sit down.
As I have carried this experiment out in a wide area in London I can no longer consider that as pure coincidence, and I agree with every word that hon. Members say when they state that inspection is not satisfactorily carried out. A short time ago I rang up the London County Council and reported a certain shop, in one department of which I knew there was deliberate persecution of assistants who attempted to sit down. I was not very graciously treated by the London County Council when I made that report, but 10 days later they visited the shop and found, as I could have told them they would find, that no seats were provided for the assistants. The excuse given was that there were plenty of seats downstairs. It is difficult to understand what use that was. However, the inspector was not satisfied and said that seats were instantly to be brought into the department. Two kitchen chairs were sent for and were brought into the department,

where they still are. The buyer in that department, however, has seen to it that the legs of one chair are broken, and the position of the girls is far from secure if they attempt to sit on the other. In the Shops Act, 1934, it was laid down that
it shall be the duty of the occupier of the shop to permit the female assistants to make use of such seats whenever the use thereof does not interfere with their work, and the occupier shall in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed form give notice informing such shop assistants that they are intended to do so.
I have very good eyesight, and I have looked round a large number of West End stores, but I have failed to see where those notices are that tell shop assistants that they can sit down.

Mr. Mabane: They are in the staff room.

Mrs. Tate: Thank you. Well, they may be in the staff room, but I would like them in every department where the assistants are serving in order that the general public may see them as well as the assistants. May I say that seats on the public side of the counter are often useless? It is impossible for a girl who is serving in, say, the lingerie department, to summon the courage in front of the buyer to walk round to the front of the counter and sit on a seat there. What she wants is a little seat that draws out from the back of the counter. There is a great deal of interest to-day in the decline of the population in this country, and there is general agreement—

Mr. Markham: What has that to do with it?

Mrs. Tate: It has a great deal to do with it. If the hon. Member will do me the honour of listening to me as I listened to him, without interruption, although it may be excruciating for him to do so, he will learn what it has to do with it.

Mr. Markham: The hon. Lady has quite misunderstood me, and I am sorry that she has taken it in that manner.

Mrs. Tate: What it has to do with it is this. The health of a girl who stands continuously week after week, month after month in a shop for long hours may be so much impaired that her capacity for child bearing may be seriously impaired. No medical man will argue about that for a moment. It is an accepted


fact. There is all over the country general agreement that the health of our young girls is of vital importance, not only from a humanitarian point of view, but from the point of view of the health of the race and the welfare of the children which we hope to bring into the world. Therefore I say that the provision of seats for shop assistants, which may seem a very small and unimportant point, is one which may have very far-reaching effects. Legislation was passed as long ago as 1899, and the fact that it is no longer in many cases any more than a dead letter should not be ignored. What is the good of talking of passing fresh legislation in the future with regard to conditions in the distributive trades if we in this House know that when we pass it, with the best intentions in the world, it will be ignored? I would rather never see a law passed at all than pass one which will become a dead letter. I hope that if legislation is brought in, the tiny shop which is run by the individual family, will be left outside it. That is not a revolutionary proposal. It is general in many parts of the world because it has been found that the inspection of these little family shops is so difficult to carry out that it is impracticable.
There is another law with regard to distribution which needs enforcing. It is, I believe, illegal for tradesmen to bribe their way into houses in order to gain custom. That law is ignored all over London. There is practically not a small trader in London to-day—in the West End at all events—who is not bribing his way into people's kitchens. That is a heavy charge on his expenses and it must add a great deal to the prices he has to charge. I will give the House an instance, because it is better to speak of what one has experienced. The last time I gave my custom to a butcher in the West End of London I sent for him personally, and said, "If I give you my custom you must clearly understand that I will not be a party to commissions of any sort, kind or description being given to my cook." He said, "Oh, of course not; we cannot possibly afford to do anything like that; we have to compete with the large stores." Shortly afterwards I had a new cook in whom I have great confidence. She had not been in the house a fortnight before she told me that the butcher had approached her, and said, "What do you want on the monthly books?" She

told him she wanted nothing, as the giving of commissions was something of which I gravely disapproved and which I would not tolerate. At the end of the year—this was last Christmas—he left her £2, in an envelope as a present. I hear an hon. Member say that that was very nice, but it cannot be very nice for the small trader who has to do it. It must add enormously to his overhead expenses. It is against the law, and we should see that the law is enforced. Otherwise, it is far better not to have the law at all.
Another point which needs consideration in the interests of the trader, if there is to be legislation in regard to the distributive trades, is the vast amount of trading which goes on in offices, clubs and societies. No body of people is more guilty of this than the Civil Service. People will always do it while it is permissible, and it is natural that they should. It is a well-known fact that in the Civil Service arrangements can be made with large distributors to supply large quantities of chocolates or cigarettes. These are sold by individuals in the offices who have of course no rent, lighting or other overheads to pay, and they are sold at the wholesale price. That is unfair to the traders who have to compete with it. That trading in offices, clubs and societies should be ended.
Hon. Members have spoken of some of the unsatisfactory wages paid and long hours worked by assistants in the distributive trades. I will therefore speak of another matter of which no one has spoken, a matter which I think is serious and is not of small proportions. I will quote only two instances, of which I have personal knowledge. There are certain shops which take on young people in what one might call the pretended role of apprentices, though they are not really apprentices, but just nothing more or less than assistants. To quote one example, a girl paid £45 for a three-term course of training at a florist's. The idea was that at the end of the training she would be able to get a good job. Having paid her £45, having done three terms of quite hard work, serving in the florist's shop, she goes out into the world to get the job for which she has been trained. She was unemployed for three months, and then got a job with a florist in Berkeley Square. Her wages were 10s. a week. I


submit that that kind of thing really ought not to be allowed.
There is another question of that type which needs to be dealt with. As hon. Members know, there are in this city of ours a large number of beauty parlours—very necessary and admirable. They sometimes take on assistants, who go, believing they are apprentices learning a trade. They sign on for a certain number of years, and they massage and manicure people for long hours daily. It cannot be particularly amusing to spend your days massaging faces and hands and manicuring nails, but they become in time quite skilled workers. In some instances they receive no pay whatsoever. They have sometimes signed on for several years. The idea is that when they leave at the end of their term of service they will be experts in beauty culture, and will know how to manufacture the various creams and lotions. But this is the one thing they never learn. They may be very good manicurists and able to massage a face, but the proprietor of the shop has taken every known precaution to prevent them from learning one of the recipes for making the creams or lotions. The girl goes out into the world scarcely more fitted for skilled employment than when she first went into the shop, because for a comparatively small sum of money one can learn manicuring. If we are going to have legislation with regard to shop assistants, that is a matter which ought to be investigated.
Another case—there is in the West End of London a very large store which, in its millinery department, will take a girl who is called an apprentice. She runs errands in the millinery department. She is supposed at the end of a certain number of years to be able to go out into the world and get a highly-paid job in the hat department of any other West End firm. While she is learning her trade, which takes three years, she is getting 3s. 6d. a week. The House may think that that does not matter very much; that perhaps the girl can live at home, and that at any rate she knew what the conditions were when she took the job. I do not want to see girls working for 3s. 6d. a week. If they do a job they must get the proper wages for it,

and if they are running about from morning till night, as the girls in a millinery store are, they are worth more than 3s. 6d. a week. They are not even learning a very great deal. Reverting to the first case I mentioned, I say that no shop or business ought to be allowed to take £45 from a girl in order to teach her to arrange flowers or another trade and then, at the end, not be able to find her work, nor should she have to take work, after three years training at 10s. a week. These things need looking into.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) did not raise one point which I felt sure that he would not raise, but which I intend to raise even if no other Member who speaks supports me. I noticed that in this agreement between employers and employés which has been put forward there is a summary of the scales of wages which it is proposed to adopt. They are exceedingly interesting. A male assistant's wages are to run from 17s. a week at 16 years of age to 63s. at 25 years of age. A female assistant's wages run from 14s. at 16 years of age to 39s. at 24 years of age. Of course, not one hon. Member in this House drew attention to that, because the party opposite is just as guilty as my own, and just as stupid, on this question of equal pay for equal work. Anyone who has had anything to do with the training or upbringing of the young knows that both boys and girls of 16 are sometimes tiresome, that it is a trying age, but I should say that a girl of 16 is, if anything, rather better as a saleswoman than a boy of 16 as a salesman, and I think it is quite indefensible that her wages should be 3s. a week less, for the same hours, than a boy's. There is a great complaint about the shortage of domestic workers in this country. I wish to sec equal opportunities of work and of life for all people. One of the best ways to get girls to do girls' work is to see that wherever men and women are working together at identical jobs they should be given identical pay. It is no good the hon. Member opposite nodding his head in assent now. He will not nod his head when his party are in office. I know well enough they will never take up this problem. Have they when they were in office ever done anything for women in this matter of equal pay?

Sir Edward Campbell: Shame.

Mrs. Tate: And you need not say "Shame" for you are all as bad as one another. When it is found in years to come that the influx of women into industry is depressing wages, do not come in amazement to the House and say, "The wicked employers are employing girls and depressing wages." Hon. Members themselves will have contributed to that situation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Westhoughton, who raised this question, had not the courage to bring up this point, which he very well knows ought to be raised, of equal pay for equal work in the distributive trades. We could have tried to start here, because there must be a beginning, and I should have liked to see a gesture come from the hon. Member for Westhoughton, astounded as I should have been had he made it.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: We have all admired the spirit of the contribution of the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), and I am sure that what she has said will be duly noted by all the members of the inferior sex whom she has so successfully lectured. I think those of us who are trying to improve conditions in the distributive trades always take note of any real cases of injustice such as she has put forward, and I hope that when we come to deal with the situation—and we hope that we on this side will have the opportunity to bring in real legislation—we shall find her a 100 per cent. supporter of that legislation. I should not have intervened if the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) had not raised the question of the conferences which have been held and were first initiated by the Minister in 1936. I should have thought that it would have been better not to discuss the matter at this stage if it could not be treated with complete freedom, but in view of what he has said I want to make it plain that the people whom I represent, the Co-operative movement, have been as forward as anybody in responding to the Minister's invitation to assist in getting a general agreement. It must not be thought that the case presented by the hon. Member for Huddersfield represents the views of all the people concerned. Some of us hold very strongly to the view that it will not be possible to operate successfully one great national machine for the distributive trades, and that if the Minister had

found sufficient support in his party and in the distributive trades to apply to them the general principles of the Trade Boards Act we should have been able to get on more rapidly, to get more effective improvements at once in the conditions and wages of the employés.
I was extremely disappointed with the statement which was drawn from the Parliamentary Secretary by the speech made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. I wish the matter had not been discussed from that angle to-night. The Minister said—I put down his words—that if there could be an extension of voluntary agreements they hoped to make the area in which compulsion was necessary as narrow as possible. That statement makes those of us who are interested in securing better conditions in the distributive trades considerably nervous, because if the Minister is likely to approve the sort of agreements which have already been entered into voluntarily, I should be disappointed to think that it indicated that he does not think legislation is necessary. Let me give two examples. There is the agreement made with the Multiple Shops Association. I quote from the "Grocer" of 27th November, 1937. According to that, males in the assistants' class at the age of 25, in London, get 58s., and in the Provinces 55s. Is anyone going to suggest that agreements of that kind would provide such a standard in the trade as would make it necessary to have general legislation for improving the conditions? I compliment the trade union on having got that far, in view of what conditions were before the agreement was entered into, but it certainly does not indicate that that will be a sufficient substitute for the trade board's principle which we had actually operating in the grocery trade as long ago as 1919 to 1921.
Another agreement which has been entered into in the North of England is certainly not such as would lead us to suppose that legislation will not be necessary over a very wide area of the distributive trades. I would beg the Minister to consider that those who have to pay the higher wages are by no means satisfied with the situation. The hon. Member for Huddersfield said that unless agreements of this kind could be supported by legislation the position would be in jeopardy, but I do not hold the view that


the firms who have entered into that agreement cannot pay much more. When the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was speaking the hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned the case of the International Tea Company, which was said not to be making large profits. One may find a multiple shop company which it not making good profits in this or that particular year, but we ought to consider what the profits of multiple shops concerns have been since the War. Let hon. Members read the history of that company's shares from the days of the acquisition of the Star Tea Company, and they will see that they have distributed as much as 30 per cent. year after year, up to about 18 months ago. The case mentioned by the hon. Member for Huddersfield no longer bears examination.
The position of co-operative societies is that for many years they have been operating a voluntary agreement, to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, and all that time they had been subject to unfair competition by the great majority—happily, not the whole—of the distributive trades with whom they are in competition. The rates in those agreements are many shillings above at this moment the new trade agreement with Lewis's and with the multiple shops. If the co-operative societies have been able, in those very difficult circumstances, to pay those higher wages, there is not the slightest reason why those large companies should not reach at least equal conditions with those of the co-operative societies. We are now in a more difficult position perhaps than we have been in for many years, because of the absence of statutory enforcement of the rates, not of the kind mentioned in the new multiple shop agreements, but of the kind that we have paid in the past. I do not want to say, nor do many of my colleagues, that the wages paid to co-operative employés are the last word, and that there is no right to ask for an improvement, but it is the measure of the improvement rather than the static position of those employés which depends upon how far the Government are prepared to deal with the problem of the very low wage-level throughout the distributive trades, in order to bring it within measurable distance of the competitive standard that we have set.
I did not want the Parliamentary Secretary to be under any misapprehension as to the co-operative point of view. We cannot possibly accept the general principle which has been laid down to-night that the matter should be dealt with by compulsion only in as narrow an area as possible. We are convinced that conditions in the distributive trade and the state of organisation of the employés are such that a general statutory provision is required for settling a reasonable and equitable standard of conditions in the distributive trades; and the sooner the Minister gets on with the job the better.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I shall not attempt to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the complicated and difficult question of agreements made by large numbers of workpeople on the one hand and large employers on the other; rather would I turn for a moment to the small employer with possibly one employé or an employer who works with two or three others only. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) compared the position of the co-operative societies with other organisations of similar traders; perhaps I might suggest to him, without wishing in any way to attack the cooperative societies, that in certain directions co-operative prices are as high as, if not in some direction slightly higher than, those of competing establishments. The co-operative societies are not supplying an equivalent service to other establishments of the same size, which does allow the societies a greater margin out of which wages are paid.

Mr. Alexander: I cannot accept either suggestion.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman say so. I was sure he would agree on the question of the service supplied. I want to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) regarding Sunday trading. He assumes that the Restriction of Sunday Trading Act is being well received by all concerned throughout the distributive trades. I can assure him that there is, rightly or wrongly, considerable feeling on the subject, especially in seaside resorts, not only among employers but in many cases among employés, who lose certain benefits as the


result of the seasonal operation of the Act. The hon. Gentleman cannot put it forward as a fact that the Act is universally accepted. The hon. Member also stated as a fact that those employed in the distributive trade had doubled in number during the last 20 years, and he gave an estimated figure of something like 2,500,000. He coupled that statement with an attack, which I am sure he did not mean to be general but which certainly sounded general, upon the conditions of those employed. Those two arguments seem to cancel themselves. How is it that the number employed has doubled in the last few years when conditions within the industry are so bad as he suggests? I do not say that there are no bad cases, but I think they are not, and his figures of increased employment prove that they cannot be very widespread.
An even more sweeping statement was made by the hon. Member for Hudders-field (Mr. Mabane) in the other direction, that there was a considerable amount of work under sweated labour conditions in small shops. I do not think I am misrepresenting what he said in his speech and in reply to questions and interruptions. That is far too dangerous and sweeping a statement to be made. One can find low wages in small shops as in large shops, but it is not fair to the small employers in small villages and towns to place them under that stigma. If he were now in the House I should ask him to reconsider the actual words which he used.
But I want to turn to the problem of those who work in the small country towns and villages in small establishments. We know that the hours and wages of those who work in the countryside must be affected to a considerable extent by the prevalent agricultural wage in the district. I do not mean that it is the same, but undoubtedly the wage rate in the countryside is bound to be affected by the lower rate existing among those who work on the land, and not by the wage rates which exist among those who work in the cities. Making due allowance for the lower rate which we can consider fair to be paid in the distributive trades in such rural districts, I would point out that there are many people who are outside the existing provisions of the law and whose conditions cannot be fully covered. I am not speaking about my own constituency nor about Somerset in particular, but certain cases have been

forced upon my attention in some parts of the country. I have ultimately found that there must be considerable hardships among certain sections of employés. The sort of case that happens is that the country butcher employs a man to help him, not only in the slaughterhouse and behind the counter but to drive a van around the countryside and feed the beasts that practically every country butcher has resting under his care or that he, as a dealer, proposes to make use of for himself or to hand over to somebody else. The hours of work I have found in some cases to be over 70 per week, and the remuneration practically no better than, or within a few shillings of, the prevailing agricultural rate.
There is the similar sort of case of the country baker with perhaps added danger to the health of the man employed. We can well imagine what the effect must be upon a young man a baker, employed at a low rate, coming out of a hot bakehouse practically straight through the shop and out into the cold winter air, in order to deliver the goods which he has manufactured in the preceding hours. In neither case is the man covered, so far as I have been able to discover, by any law made by Parliament, and I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary state what his right hon. Friend was proposing to do. What is needed is a tightening up of the application of the law, but even so we should find gaps over which we had practically no jurisdiction. Whether those gaps should be remedied by major or minor amendment of the law I should be out of order in discussing at the present moment, but I believe we might be able to do something, even as a result of this Debate.
One of the reasons why the small shop in the countryside is experiencing great difficulty is very largely because of the demand for improved service and the high rate of service offered by some of the larger establishments, which send out their vehicles to deliver goods 30 miles or 40 miles away in rural England, to places which are perhaps many miles from any large centre of population. One of the chief drawbacks of the small country trader, tending to keep his wages down if he is to make any sort of living at all, is the necessity to deliver his goods over a very wide area. He often drives out in his motor van or horse and cart, and he cannot impose an additional charge to the


customer in respect of delivery. The ideal customer to him is one who has paid for the goods and has taken them away across the counter. One of the finest things that the large distributive establishments could do to raise themselves in the esteem of the public would be to show that they are prepared to co-operate in working out an economical and efficient distributive system by coming to some arrangement as regards charges for distribution. I do not think it is right that the woman who buys something across the counter should pay more because the woman who lives five miles away is not charged for the delivery of exactly similar goods to her, or that the large establishments should force the smaller one into great difficulty by the fact that they are able to transfer a loss from one side of the business to another side which is making a profit, and can deliver goods at a loss in an area which is not in their own district.
I really rose to direct attention to the difficulty of the small man in the typical English village or small country town. I do not believe that the small trader in such circumstances would grind the faces of those who work for him; the faces of those who do the work are a complete answer to that suggestion. The majority are ruddy, hale, healthy and happy. But I suggest that there are gaps in the existing legislation that ought to be stopped up.

7 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: It is gratifying to notice that although many hon. Members have spoken on the Motion hardly anyone has yet said a word against it. An exception was the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham), who said that the Motion was rather ungenerous in its terms towards the Government and to what the Government had done to improve conditions of life. I have no desire to be ungenerous, and therefore at the outset I want to pay a tribute to the work done by the officials of the Ministry of Labour, and particularly by Mr. Leggett, who has striven to bring individual employers as well as associations of employers and the trade unions together, with the result that quite a number of agreements have been put into operation. These agreements with the shop assistants have recently been made with 45 firms, covering 80,000

workers, 24 other firms in the grocery and provision trades, employing 20,000 workers, and a number of departmental stores covering the grocery and provision departments—altogether over 100,000 workers. Then there have been agreements in drapery and departmental stores operating 17 stores in the following towns—Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Leicester, Birmingham, Hanley, Glasgow, Preston, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Chester, and Bolton. Altogether these agreements cover 150,000 workers. But, after all, that is a very small number out of the great army of shop assistants throughout the length and breadth of the country.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) said he did not think that it was right to say that wages within recent years had been very low. As a matter of fact, wages within recent years have indeed been very low, and I will show the reason why. When the men left the armed forces of the Crown after the War they were organised in our Shop Assistants' Union at an average of over 2,000 a week, and we were able to secure improved conditions, which meant increasing wages by over £7,000,000. We secured a 48-hour week for thousands in the retail trade, and a 44-hour week for thousands in the wholesale trade. But when the trade slump came and there were very few openings for young people in productive occupations the result was a huge influx of juveniles into the distributive trades; and ever since then wages gradually worsened until investigations made by the Ministry of Labour so impressed the Minister that he started the idea of trying to bring the associations of employers and representatives of trade unions together. The hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned the attitude of the Grocers' Federation. I well know their attitude. In the past they have always been very anxious to co-operate with the Shop Assistants' Union when it was a question of early closing. But when you mentioned the question of wages, that was another matter, and there was nothing doing. That has been their attitude all along. It is good to learn from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Home Secretary has decided that if complaints are lodged against the inaction of local authorities the Home Office will get into touch with those local authorities.
I want to deal with the question of shop hours. There is no question that has been more often before Parliament. The first Bill was introduced in 1873–64 years ago; and no fewer than 30 Bills have been introduced since then. The question has also been very fruitful of Commissions. No fewer than six Commissions of Inquiry have been appointed at various times by different Governments, and the evidence in all the Blue Books is absolutely overwhelming as to the long hours worked and the injurious effects of such long hours upon those employed behind the counter. Especially is that true in the case of women and young persons. The Mover of the Motion pointed out that until 1934, when an Act was passed dealing with the hours of young persons under 18, the only legislative measure was an Act passed in 1886. Thus that Act stood for 48 years before anything was done to restrict the employment of young persons under 18. The old Act was allowed to be exploited up to 74 hours, inclusive of meal times. In 1911 we hade the Early Closing Act, which provided for a weekly half-holiday. That certainly was a big boon for shop assistants. It also provided for the regulation of meal times and the enforcement of local closing orders, but unfortunately local closing hours were restricted to a time not earlier than 7 p.m.
Our contention is that early closing is not enough. It is perfectly true that if you go to any town and any street you like you will find assistants working long after the shops have been closed. That is due in the main to under-staffing—under-staffing at a time when at least 200,000 distributive workers are unemployed. In that connection I want to give two figures. Take Scotland. Between the ages of 14 and 15 unemployment in the case of boys is 4.35 per cent.; between 16 and 17 it is 12.29 Per cent.; between 18 and 20 it is 15.79 Per cent.; and at the age of 21 and over it is 20.69 per cent. In the case of Wales the figures are much worse. Boys unemployed between the ages of 14 and 15 are 6.10 per cent.; between 16 and 17, 13.22 per cent.; between the ages of 18 and 20, 19.89 per cent.; and at the ages of 21 and over, 24.72 per cent. There is no occupation in the country that consumes the young life of the nation to such an extent as the distributive trades, and no occupation where more women and young persons are

employed—750,000 between the ages of 14 and 20. So that, like painters, who are only wanted in the springtime of the year, the shop assistants are only wanted in the springtime of their lives. Long hours, often in a vitiated atmosphere, have a decidedly detrimental effect on health. I am glad that the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) took up this question of the unhealthy conditions of work of women. Over 40 years ago a very eminent physician, Dr. Richardson, said:
The effects of shop labour on females under 21, or on males under 21, is of necessity injurious, as impeding the growth and the natural development of the organs of the body. To the female the mischief is of a kind calculated to extend to the offspring which she may bear. In my opinion eight hours daily is the maximum time during which labour ought to be carried on in shops.
That was said 40 years ago, and even to-day there is no limitation of the working hours of assistants over 18 years of age. The medical fraternity have time and again condemned long hours in shops. A petition was at one time presented to this House signed by a very large and representative body of doctors, praying the House of Commons to reduce the hours of shop assistants. In 1930, before the Select Committee was set up, Dr. Ethel Bentham, speaking in this House, from her experience as a medical practitioner said that the health of shop assistants compared extremely badly with that of people in almost any other trade. Assistants suffered from varicose veins, flat feet, and all the disabling things which make life a misery; they aged very early, and broke down very early. With regard to women the matter was even more important and vital.
Long hours, we contend, are absolutely unnecessary. The hours of the cooperative societies, which cater for working-class customers, are 44 a week in the North of England, and 48 in the rest of the country. It has never been contended that the well-to-do classes desire late shopping. In the West End of London you will find a 48-hour week, and in some cases 45½ hours. The Great War brought about many changes, and not least in the shopping habits of the people. True, that was largely due to D.O.R.A., but late closing is a waste of human life, and in scores of towns a 6 o'clock or 6.30 closing time came into operation. But, unfortunately, under a voluntary arrangement


it only required one or two cantankerous individuals to break away and the voluntary arrangement collapsed. The present Shop Hours Act fixes local closing orders for an hour not earlier than 7 p.m. A slight amendment—and, after all, that was recommended by the Select Committee—to permit closing orders for an hour earlier than 7 o'clock would be welcomed by many traders. The report of the Select Committee in 1931 was the most important that has ever been issued affecting shop assistants. It was a far-reaching document which recommended not only the limitation of working hours but better sanitation, ventilation and heating. It is true that the 1934 Act reduced the hours of young persons by a gradual process to 48, but unfortunately it left 52 hours of unpaid overtime per annum. The evidence of the Juvenile Employment and Welfare Officers' Association given before that Select Committee showed how long hours prevent assistants from attending evening classes, and this at a period of life when opportunity should be given for intellectual, cultural, and physical improvement.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. Leslie: Unfortunately, infringements of the Act of 1934 are very common. I will give one or two cases. One is that of a girl 18 years of age employed by a Sheffield firm for 71½ hours a week at a wage of 12s. The 71½ hours were worked as follows: Sunday, 10.30 a.m. until 9.30 p.m.; Monday to Thursday, 9.30 a.m. until 9.30 p.m.; Saturday, 9.30 a.m. until 10 p.m. "On Friday she had a whole day's holiday, and she might well need it," declared the shops inspector. In addition to exceeding the legal maximum of hours by 19½ per week, there were five charges against the firm for not allowing proper intervals for meals, and a charge of failing to keep a record of the hours worked and the intervals allowed for rest and meals to the assistant. Another case is that of a lad of 16 who was employed until 11.30 on several evenings in the week, on Saturday till 12 o'clock, and also on Sunday mornings. I could quote a number of these cases, but I have said sufficient to show that even the Act of 1934 is not being properly administered at the present time.
The evidence given before the Select Committee showed that there was a high mortality between the ages of 16 and 20, and that these assistants suffered from lowered vitality and chronic affections attributable to long hours of standing, bad arrangements for meals, and lack of fresh air and natural light. The Select Committee recommended a strict enforcement of the statutory provisions with regard to meal-times and half-holidays, and the evidence generally showed what the hon. Member for Frome has told us to-night, namely, that very little use of seats was being made in practice. Indeed, the investigators who went round were told that the girls got used to standing, and that it looked more businesslike for them to stand than to be seen sitting. This is a purely domestic occupation, in which shorter hours are possible. There is no foreign competition or international complication. To-day a 48-hour week is operating in Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, and nearly every State of America, while in Finland the working week is 47 hours, and in Poland 46. Surely, it is not too much to ask that we should have a 48-hour week in this country.
Unfortunately the Government, so far, have failed to give effect to all the findings of the Select Committee. When the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) introduced a Bill to give effect to the findings of the Committee, the Government spokesmen on that occasion objected. He said it would create unemployment, but that seems to be a new theory. Our impression was that by reducing hours from, in many cases, 60 to 48, we might be able to absorb at any rate some of the 250,000 who were then unemployed. The second objection made to the Bill was that it would increase the cost of commodities. In my evidence to the Committee I showed that, in shops where the hours were 48 or less per week, no more was charged for commodities than in shops where 60 hours and more were worked per week. The third objection was that it would reduce wages. Wages were already so low that the Minister was convinced that something had to be done, and therefore he called together employers and trade unions; and, as I have already said, thanks to the persuasive powers of Mr. Leggett, agreements on wages were arranged between a number of individual firms and


associations of firms and the trade unions concerned. Unfortunately, however, these represent but a tiny minority of the 2,250,000 people employed in the distributive trade. Therefore we say that wage-fixing machinery is absolutely necessary. I could quote a number of cases of low wages. Here are one or two. The "Situations Vacant" column of a Liverpool evening paper recently contained the following:
Grocery and provisions. Smart experienced young man for both counters. Good at figures. References. 28s. weekly.
I suppose that, when they were getting an assistant at 28s. weekly. they thought it was very necessary to have a reference with him. In another case, in the tailoring trade, a young man who wears pinstriped trousers and a black coat and waistcoat is getting £1 a week; he is 22 years of age. Another, 21 years of age, is receiving 21s. a week. Here is a letter that was written by a mother to the "Grocer," which is the "Times" of the grocery trade:
My son has been employed for eight years in the trade, and his wages are only 34s. per week, with the insurance deducted. He is now 23 years of age. Another assistant employed at the same shop, whose age is 21, receives 21s. per week.
She also says that her son was advised to attend classes at the technical institute. He did, and gained several certificates, and he was told that it would mean 10s. a week more on his wages; but the grocer who advised him to do that was discovered to be paying only 25s. a week to his own assistants, and if they asked for more they usually got the sack.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield assured us that in the distributive trade it was possible to rise from the bottom right up to the top; in other words, that there was always the marshal's baton in one's knapsack. I will give an illustration of the marshal's baton in the knapsack. A grocer's manager in South Wales was charged with embezzling a sum of money from his employer, so evidently he wanted something more than a baton in his knapsack. In the course of the evidence it transpired that the manager was receiving £2 11s. a week, that he was responsible for stock valued at over £400, and that he was handling money amounting to between £150 and £200 per week. He worked 60 hours a week. Here is the wage bill of that shop:

£
s.
d.


Manager
2
11
0


Assistant (18 years of age)

11
0


Boy Assistant (17 years of age)

10
0


Another Assistant

9
0


Girl (17 years of age)

8
6


Another girl

7
6


Boy at week-ends

2
6

That is a total wage bill of £4 19s. 6d., for an average turnover of £167 a week. Not content with paying these low wages, some firms still adhere to radius agreements debarring ex-employés from starting in business on their own account or accepting situations with any other firm in the same line of business. These radius agreements are usually for a radius of three miles and a period of three years. That puts a man outside almost any town, and during that period he cannot accept a situation in the district with any other firm in the same line of business. It is bad enough for firms to pay low wages, but is infinitely worse when they can reserve the right to prevent a man from selling his labour to anyone else after dispensing with his services. Scores of these people are thrown on to public assistance because of these radius agreements, and I think that the Government ought to take note of that fact. Imagine the position of a married man with a wife and children dependent on him. Another grievance is that a character may be with held for some trivial reason. The average shop assistant is not in the happy position of the errand boy who applied for a job to a cantankerous old grocer in Scotland. The first question he was asked was, "Have you a character?" and the boy confessed that he had not. "Then," said the grocer, "run away home and ask your mother to get a line from the school teacher or the minister." Shortly afterwards the boy returned, and the grocer asked him whether he had got a character. He replied, "No, I have not, but I've got yours, and I'm no' comin'." The average assistant is not in that happy position. He is often compelled to take any sort of situation with any type of employer under any conditions that the employer cares to impose. Parliament may pass legislation to safeguard the conditions of employment, but, unless the spirit and intention of the Acts is observed in their administration, they become virtually a dead letter.

In this connection I want to call the attention of the House to the attitude


adopted by certain magistrates. Some magistrates go out of their way, when cases of infringement of the Acts come before them, to cast reflections on the Acts, and impose fines of a trifling character, calculated to bring the law into contempt. There was the classic case of a London magistrate who imposed fines of ½d.; and 1s. and 5s. fines are quite common. Deputations from the trade associations and trade unions have gone to the Home Secretary on this matter, but, naturally, the Home Secretary's attitude is on the lines of clemency. Perhaps, however, a word from the Home Secretary to magisterial benches enjoining them not to bring the law into contempt might have the desired effect. The Mover of the Motion dealt with the administration of the Shops Acts by local authorities. Recent legislation has always been in the direction of seeking to save the taxpayer at the expense of the ratepayer, and the result has been that Act after Act has been thrown on to the local authorities. Unfortunately for shop assistants, many local authorities fail in their duty of seeing that sanitation, ventilation and heating are properly carried out, not to mention dealing with breaches with respect to the hours of young people. I hope that this Motion will receive the unanimous support of the House, so that employers in the distributive trade may see that Parliament will not tolerate sweated conditions. What we want is a living wage and fair conditions of employment generally.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House views with concern the long hours of labour, low wages, and bad conditions of employment prevalent in the distributive trades, and, whilst welcoming the efforts made by the best employers and the trades unions through collective agreements to establish better standards, is of opinion that further measures, including a more strict and uniform administration of the Shops Acts, are necessary to raise the social conditions of this very large section of the working community.

COST OF LIVING.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Lathan: I beg to move,
That this House, taking note of the upward trend of prices without a corresponding increase in the income of the average household, is of opinion that the public, especially that section of it already suffering on account

of inadequate resources, should be protected by measures for the better organisation of production and distribution and the elimination of profiteering in order to keep the cost of living within proper limits.
I have, at the outset, to ask the indulgence of the House, because I am suffering, as hon. Members can hear, from a disability which will render it impossible, I fear, for me to do the justice I should have desired to the Motion. Incidentally, it may be that some hon. Members will view my affliction with a measure of equanimity, as it will relieve them from the possibility of my occupying their time. While it certainly would appear to some of us on these benches that there is a peculiar appropriateness in discussing a question of this character at this time of the year, a different opinion obtains in other quarters, if the attendance on the other side is an indication of their view.
When I gave notice, a fortnight ago., that I would draw attention to this matter, I believed that there were few subjects occupying the minds of the people of this country to a greater extent. If I had had any doubt, that would have been dispelled by the state of my post-bag since. From all quarters and all sorts of people, communications have rained in upon me—from organisations, from individuals, from those who are deeply affected by the present state of affairs, and from those who are not, but who desire to see a remedial improvement effected and a burden removed from the shoulders of their less fortunate fellow-citizens. I have received communications from public men and women, from the women with the basket—the housewives—and from the aged poor. Most pitiful of all have these been, putting to me problems that I cannot answer, and I would invite the Government to give some consideration to them. From some, I have had prayers; from some, with the desire that I should pass them on, terms that would bear a different kind of interpretation. One gentleman, in condemning very emphatically the tax on the workman's Christmas dinner, quoted Dickens, and asked me to read the quotation to the House. I will spare the House. He invited me, in particular, to read it to the Minister, whom he took to be the modern prototype of Scrooge.
If hon. Members have any doubt as to the feeling on this question, let them consult


the housewives in their divisions, and I prophesy that those doubts will be speedily removed. Those housewives know that during the last four years food prices have risen 16 per cent.; bread has risen by 2d. per 4-lb. loaf, potatoes by a 1d. for each 7 lbs., bacon by 2¾d. per 1b., butter by 4d. per lb., and eggs by ¼d. each. The position in regard to milk is little short of a scandal. Milk in Great Britain is dearer to-day than in any other country in Europe. On 1st November, the price of milk in London rose from 7d. to 7½d. a quart. That means that thousands of people who can afford to buy milk only in half-pints at a time, are charged 2d. for each half-pint, and the milk for the poorest costs in effect 8d. a quart. Milk, one of the chief necessities of life, is for the poorest people the dearest of all things. The Advisory Committee on Nutrition has stated that the desirable amount of milk for children is from one to two pints a day. At the present time, and with present prices, one and a-half pints of milk a day would cost 5¾d., or 3s. 4¼d. a week. It is more than the whole sum allowed by the Unemployment Assistance Board for the maintenance of a child under five where there are other members in the family.
I will not depend alone on the point of view of the housewives in regard to this question. There is ample independent corroboration and authority. The "Financial News," which will hardly be regarded as an organ of Left Wing thought, on 23rd November last, said:
It is perhaps a little anomalous that at a time when commodity prices are falling and unemployment is threatening to rise, the increase in the cost of living should be a matter of major economic and political concern.
Incidentally it does not appear to be so to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House.
But at the recent by-elections, the rising cost of food has shown itself to be a political issue of first-class importance and in the United States, where the increase during the last 12 months has been only three-fifths as great as the increase here, President Roosevelt has felt himself compelled to initiate an inquiry into the reasons for the increase and into any 'monopolistic practices' which may have stimulated it. Here, there is so far no sign of official action by the Government. But, nevertheless, the problem is an acute one, not only for the wage-earner, but also for all those who receive fixed money incomes. The advance has been serious.
Other papers and other bodies have given attention to the matter. I have

no doubt my hon. Friends on the Liberal benches will desire to tell us of the journalistic investigation in which they are specially interested, and I will not encroach upon their territory. These rises are not recent or spasmodic; they are continuous and substantial. The Food Council, in its report for 1936, drew attention to the high prices of bread and fish. First, as regards bread, they said:
We consider that bread prices are of special importance, because it has been estimated that bread and flour represent some 20 per cent. of the total expenditure of poor families on food, and that the addition of 1d. to the price of the 4 lb. loaf, with a corresponding increase in the price of flour, represents an increase of over 2 points in the cost of living index.
In regard to fish, they said:
Although the port prices of fish have for some years been in general far from satisfactory to the catching side of the industry, the retail price of fish still stands higher in relation to pre-War than that of any other food. In 1926 the Ministry of Labour's index for fish averaged 101 per cent., while their general food index averaged 30 per cent. above July, 1914.
To-day, so far as fish is concerned, the position is worse. The "Ministry of Labour Gazette "for December shows that the average for the country on 1st November, 1937, was 102, but in the large towns, and that is where the pressure is felt most, it was 108.
Lest it be thought that I am looking at the question from the point of view of the consumer only, let me now quote a representative of the distributors. British meat tops the list, so far as prices are concerned, in the Ministry of Labour statistics. In the "Times" of 28th September last Mr. Coggan, President of the Meat Traders' Association, is reported as saying:
The matter which is foremost in the minds of all our members. … is the continued climb in the cost of all classes of meat, a climb which has, in my judgment, been due to a very considerable degree to the quota policy of the Government.
He was supported, according to the report in the "Times," by others, and a resolution giving effect to his views was carried by a very large majority.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Was the resolution strictly on the lines of his speech?

Mr. Lathan: Yes, as far as I am able to gather from the report. I will arrange for the hon. Member to have the report in extenso if he wishes.

Mr. Williams: I was present when the resolution was carried.

Mr. Lathan: Then I am sure that, with his regard for strict accuracy, the hon. Member will confirm the statement I have made.

Mr. Williams: I do not.

Mr. Lathan: If the hon. Member differs from my interpretation, his quarrel is not with me, but with the "Times," because I am quoting as literally as I can the "Times" report. I have said that these increases are continuous. Ample support for that contention is to be found in the Ministry of Labour's figures, but I will not take up time in proving what is well within the knowledge of most hon. Members. As a short time only has elapsed since the matter was last discussed by the House, it may be appropriate to compare the figures with those prevailing in July, when the question was last before the House, and also the figures which were then alluded to for the end of last year. In December last, the index figures were: for all items, 51 per cent., and for food only, 36 per cent. In July last they were: for all items, 55 per cent., and for food only, 40 per cent. To-day, they are: for all items, 60 per cent., and for food only, 46 per cent. That, it will be observed, is an increase of nine for all items and 10 for food since December, and five for all items and six for food since July. Since the question was last debated here, these increases have taken place—again, I quote from the Ministry of Labour figures for six essential foods—bacon has increased by ¾d. per lb., tea by ½d. per lb., fresh butter by 2½d. per lb., salt butter by 2¼d. per lb., cheese by ¾d. per lb., eggs by 1d. each and milk by 1d. a quart.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: Has the consumption gone down as a consequence of these increases, or has the consumption increased?

Mr. Lathan: I think what I shall say a little later will prove beyond doubt that consumption has gone down, because people are compelled to do without, because they have not the resources to buy the necessities of life. Let us consider the matter from another point of view. The Government have set up committees, and are engaged in considerable propaganda in regard to nutrition, cookery and

allied subjects. All that is justifiable in its way, although it is my view that, in present circumstances, it looks very much like a mockery to a large number of our people. The women with whom I come in contact in my own constituency, who are concerned with these questions, suggest that there is something else which the Government might do. They might set up another committee to show them how to get the money necessary to buy these essential foods. The House also will not need instruction upon what are well known as the British Medical Association's minimum diets. They set out the very minimum upon which life can be satisfactorily maintained. The organised working women of the country are much interested in this question. A standing joint committee representing women engaged in industry and commerce, the co-operative women and the women organised within the Labour party, representing approximately 2,000,000 women in all, recently invited the housewives in different parts of the country to ascertain costs of the minimum diet for a family of five—man, woman and three children. When the diet was constructed in 1933 by the British Medical Association, the cost was said to be 22s. 6½d. per week.
I have here a summary of 60 cases relating to all parts of the country, which shows that the cost of this minimum diet on the 26th November last ranged from 26s. 8½d. the lowest to 36s. 2d. the highest. If there is any desire on the part of hon. Members for details of places or particulars of the diet—I am assuming that they are sufficiently acquainted with the subject to have these facts in mind—I shall be very pleased to give these details. It will be observed that the minimum increase is 4s. 2d. per week and the maximum increase 13s. 7½d. A moderate average would be 30s. The women responsible for the collection of these figures were asked to quote the cheapest prices at the shops doing ordinary working-class trade. In a number of cases they even went to the street markets in order to secure the cheapest possible prices. It must be remembered that the diet is a bare one, a minimum only. Medical opinion takes the view that it allows too little of milk and butter, and there are no eggs at all.
I will trouble the House with a little further information of this character. I have in my hand a document, or, what the lawyers, I believe, would call, an exhibit, which may not be very well known to hon. Gentlemen opposite although I strongly suspect that more than a few of my colleagues on this side of the House have assisted in entering up records in such books. It is the weekly order-book of a grocery store, and it has been sent to me by one of my constituents. She gives me the actual figures checked up by the assistant and entered at the time, when there was no idea in the mind of anybody concerned, that they would be used for the purpose for which I am now using them. They show the prices of articles of regular consumption in 1932. This book is accompanied with information which is confirmed in regard to the prices of those same commodities at the present time. The commodities are flour, butter, lard, sugar, bacon and coal. I will not trouble the House—though I am perfectly prepared to give the details if desired—but the total increase in the price of those articles alone is 2s. 10¾d. It will be observed by the House that there are no extravagances and no luxuries. There is nothing to justify the comment that was made when last we discussed this question in this House about unnecessary expenditure upon cosmetics and that kind of thing.

Major Mills: The hon. Member has said that there was an increase of 2s. 10¾d., and it would be interesting to know the proportionate increase in respect of these commodities.

Mr. Lathan: I shall be very pleased to do so. It was only consideration for the time of the House that prevented me from reading out the details straight away. The quantities and prices are as follows. One stone of flour, price in 1932, 1s. 7d., to-day 2s. 7d.; one pound of butter 1s. 1d., now 1s. 7d.; one pound of lard 6d., now 9½d.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Does the hon. Member say 1s. 7d. for butter? It is 1s. 4d. in London—at the Army and Navy Stores, half a mile away. [An HON. MEMBER: "You mean cart grease!"] It is dairy butter.

Mr. Lathan: I am dealing with the facts of the case, and the facts are that two pounds of sugar in 1932 cost 2¾d., and

to-day the price is 5d.; one pound of bacon was 8d. and to-day it is 1s. 6d.; coal was 1s. 9d. a bag, and to-day the price is 1s. 10d. If hon. Members will take the trouble to cast up the figures which I have given, I think they will find that they confirm the statement which I have made as to the total increase being 2s. 10¾d.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Did the hon. Member say that sugar was double in price?

Mr. Lathan: Yes.

Mr. Williams: The price is the same today as it was in 1932.

Mr. Lathan: I am giving the figures that were given to me, and I am not questioning for a moment the knowledge which the hon. Member possesses on this subject. These articles were bought at a co-operative stores where there is not the same incentive, it will be admitted, to profiteer, because whatever profit is made is distributed among those who make the purchases. This morning I had a similar communication from another woman constituent. In this case the woman says that the commodities were bought from leadings firms, Maypole, Limited, Meadow Dairy, Limited, Home and Colonial Stores, Gallons, Limited, and other similar companies. She gives the prices to-day, which are almost, but not precisely, the same as those which I have given, and they show that there has been, in fact, a heavier increase than was the case in regard to the budget of the woman to which I have already referred. Increases, however, are not limited to food alone, in connection with which, I say at once, it is not difficult, in some instances, to understand or indeed to justify advances, but in necessaries other than food are also very high.
The secretary of one of the largest cooperative societies in the country operating in my constituency informs me that, during the last two years, furniture has advanced by 5 per cent. in the retail price, hardware from 10 to 15 per cent., carpets 20 per cent., crockery from 15 to 20 per cent., and cheap clothes have advanced by 20 per cent. Woollen and textile goods have advanced similarly, but in the case of woollen and textile goods the reports which I have received will be confirmed wherever you make inquiry, that cheaper goods are now being bought owing to the increase in the cost


of food. The average increase in the price of meat is 6 per cent. The average increase in the price of boots and shoes since 1933 has been 10 per cent. There again, as in the case of clothing, lower-priced articles are being purchased because of economies imposed on the housewives and others in connection with the cost of bare existence. He confirms the housewife's statement which I read with regard to food prices.
So far my comments have been made in relation to people who are fortunate enough to be in work and whose situation is difficult enough, but what is the position of the 1,500,000 unemployed? Some indication may be gathered from a report which I have here. The standing joint committee to which I have already made reference recently circulated 1,000 questionnaires among employed and unemployed workers in all parts of the country, and 476 unemployed families supplied details. I would remind the House that the Ministry of Health published a report on diet in 1932 in the case of Poor Law children's homes, which showed that the cost of food alone at contract prices was about 4s. 6½d. per week. Sir John Orr, whose authority in this matter will not be questioned by hon. Members—

Mr. H. G. Williams: Yes, every time.

Mr. Lathan: —says that full health demands 10s. a week. This is the position of the 476 families. Eighty-seven per cent. of them have no more than 4s. per week each for food; 77 per cent. of them have less than 4s. per week; 41 per cent. no more than 3s. per week, and a number have actually less than 2s. per week. Only 30 of the 476 families have no children. As far as milk is concerned—and hon. Members will all be aware of the extent to which we are being urged on the hoardings and elsewhere to drink more milk—179 of the families buy no fresh milk, as they simply cannot afford it. Thirty-two buy one pint as a special treat apparently on Sundays. One hundred and two buy from a quarter to half a pint per day, and the remainder buy from four to six pints per week. or from one to one and a-half pints or more per day.
There are other members of the community keenly concerned in the question

—the old age pensioners. To-day there are no fewer than 236,570 in receipt of Poor Law relief. Among my correspondence yesterday there was a letter from a poor old lady. I am prepared to produce it if anybody desires to see it. She has apparently seen better days. She has 10s. a week, and has to pay 5s. for a room, and the cost of coal to her is 2s. 7d. per cwt. She says:
I am too proud to beg or ask for relief 
and then, with pathetic moderation, she says:
only get us a little more than bread, margarine and tea and we shall bless you for ever.
In Sheffield, which I have the honour and responsibility to represent, along with six other hon. Members, there are 5,433 people over 65 years of age in receipt of out-relief, of whom 4,678 are old age pensioners. In 1931, a year to which I have no doubt reference will be made before to-night's Debate concludes, there were only 3,086 old persons in that position, and these are supposed to be times of prosperity, at least for Sheffield, if not for other cities.
I state in my Motion that there is no corresponding increase in average household income. I think that is almost universally agreed. The workers and their wives will need no convincing on that point. I am not overlooking the progress that has been made in particular directions, thanks to the trade unions. Nor do I forget that much that is spoken of as increase is the restoration of cuts which were imposed during the world depression. I am not forgetful that last month the position of 1,126,000 persons was improved to the extent of £126,000 a week, which is a rather meagre improvement. Nor do I forget that during the current year the full-time wages rates of rather less than 5,000,000 people have been improved to the extent of £723,000 per week. I am not neglecting the fact that winter allowances have been or are being made to the unemployed. But the fact remains that salaries, wages, incomes, lag behind. There is ample independent confirmation for this view, although I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that there is a shortage of basic information of the character we would desire in order to make our comparison as satisfactory as we would wish.
It is a matter of common knowledge to hon. Members in all parts of the House that questions have been raised very frequently in past years in regard to the basis of the Ministry of Labour cost of living index, which is now the subject of investigation by a special committee. With regard to the position of wages and income, this is what the "Financial News" said on 23rd November:
The increases in wage rates which have taken place in the last year have been insufficient to offset this big increase in costs. Since November last wage rates have actually risen by only 4 per cent.
The "Economist," on 27th November, drew attention to the fact that the Ministry of Labour wage index was 3 or 4 per cent. above last year's level, whilst the cost of living was about 6 per cent. The hon. Baronet the Leader of the Liberal party has pointed out that it is false to assume that wages have kept pace with prices. The Trades Union Congress, which on this matter may be fully trusted not to distort figures, for obvious reasons, says in its published index figures that whilst money wages have steadily increased in recent years, the position in regard to real wages, that is, wages interpreted in terms of purchasing power, has rapidly become substantially worse. The figures are: in January of this year, money wages 98.0, real wages 109.5, at the end of November, money wages 102.0 and real wages 107.5.
What is the remedy and what is the reply? May I say, with respect, to the Government representative and to those who are responsible for the Amendment on the Paper, that there is no need to lecture us on the danger of abnormally low prices? Abnormally low or abnormally high prices are harmful, in the long run, to all concerned. We do not contest that. Our business or the business of the Government is to ensure that prices are such as are reasonably consistent with a fair return to the producer and fair wages to the worker; that startling fluctuations are avoided and profiteering is prevented. Is that being done or is it contemplated? Read the reports of the Meat Traders' Association in relation to Government policy. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) will enlighten us as to what they said. Read the report of the Food Council for last year, about fish prices and milk. It is a devastating document. Then read the reports of the dividends declared

by some of the firms engaged in producing and distributing the necessaries of life—the dividends of millers ranging from 15 to 20 per cent. and dairies paying 12½ per cent.
The Government claim credit when prices are low, just as they do when wages rise, as a result of trade union action, and they cannot repudiate responsibility when prices rise. I hope that we shall not have the same kind of reply that was given in July of last year. This talk about world prices, world tendencies and markets, quotas and tariffs, may all be important in some respects, and may be intellectually interesting to those to whom a 5 per cent. increase of prices means only some encroachment upon an adequate margin, but I ask the Government and the House to remember that to millions of our fellow citizens it means anxiety and difficulty, and to many the difference between bare sufficiency and want. These people are asking what Parliament is doing. I pass that question on to the Government, and await their reply.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to second the Motion.
I shall have the House with me in saying that there was no need for my hon. Friend to apologise for physical difficulties. His speech was one of cogency and clarity, and the House will be anxious to hear him again when he is free from a disability which was not obvious. While my hon. Friend was speaking an hon. Member opposite interrupted him, very courteously, with an inquiry. He asked whether the increase in food prices meant a decrease in food quantity consumption. I should not like to be either unkind or discourteous to the hon. Member, but the nature of his question indicated the very wide gulf which exists between his own personal experience and the experience of the average working class home.

Mr. Samuel: I was speaking about the total consumption of the country and not about individuals. I was asking whether the consumption of the whole country, butter, meat, sugar and so forth, has not constantly increased. Does not the country consist of the people?

Mr. Ridley: It may be that the average consumption has been maintained, because a great many people are eating more than they ought to do, but it is a fact that the


average is weighted down because a great many people consume far less food than they ought to do. Whereas to most hon. Members an increase in the cost of living means paying more this week in order to buy the same quantity of food which a smaller amount of money was able to purchase last week, it means for thousands of unemployed persons, with low, restricted incomes, that they are paying the same sum of money this week for a smaller amount of food than they were able to buy with the same amount of money last week. In other words, less food is now being purchased because owing to the cost of living having increased, a smaller amount of food is purchased with the same amount of money. Every increase in the cost of living means that the shopkeeper receives the same amount of money for less food.
I have gone to the trouble of testing this point with a shop in my own constituency. The volume of every prime necessity in November, 1937, compared with November, 1936, in that working class town shows a volume decrease in consumption, with one exception, and that exception is margarine. Therefore, with every increase in the cost of living as far as working class people are concerned, the total consumption of food inevitably falls. There has been a fall in working class consumption in the last 12 months of flour, lard, bacon and milk which, as my hon. Friend said, has now in London and elsewhere risen to a price unknown for years, namely 3¾d. a pint, at the very moment when all sorts of publicity are being employed to encourage people to consume more milk, when they have not the money with which to purchase it. The only thing that has risen in the total quantity of consumption is margarine as a substitute for butter. This means that in distressed areas, in particular, the conditions are being seriously accentuated in regard to the food of the population.
When I first became acquainted with my constituency one of the things which struck me was the complete absence of fruit shops. The wage standards were so low and unemployment benefits so inadequate, that the people were unable to purchase those fruit foods which hon. Members regard as an important if not an essential part of their diet. My hon.

Friend has referred to the British Medical Association diet scale. That diet laid down a minimum of food quantities worked out in terms of what was required by a man with a wife and three children. In July, 1933, in the town of which I am speaking, to purchase the British Medical Association's food quantities for those five people cost 22s. 6d. In November, 1937, it cost £1 9s. 1½d. In other words, for the British Medical Association scale there has been a rise in the past four years in the town from which these figures are derived a rise in price of 22 per cent. If these figures are applied to people on unemployment benefit or public assistance, or to those on low wage standards, it will be seen how totally inadequate are their wages to meet this increase. The Unemployment Assistance Board's figures for a man with a wife and three young children is 33s.; the cost of the British Medical Association scale for the bare minimum of food is £1 9s. 1½d., leaving a balance for rent and clothes, the replacement of utensils, and other things, of 3s. 10½d. If we generously assume that in many areas the normal wage standard is 50s. per week, there would be left after paying a rent of 7s. 6d., a balance for the satisfaction of all these other requirements of 13s. 4½d. I have taken the trouble to discover that if the same foods bought in April, 1936, for 10s. 11d. had been purchased in 1937 they would have cost 13s. 3½d.; but if in November, 1937, only 10s. 11d. was available for the purchase of food, as was the case in 1933, it must be obvious that a smaller quantity of food could be purchased 18 months later.
I suggest that the Government's policy is largely to blame for the rise in food prices. We have gone back in the last five years to economic nationalism, which must remind every informed politician of the days before the age of Peel. Food restrictions, bacon quotas, sugar and tea taxation, and the general operation of a tariff must inevitably mean a rise in essential food prices, and must have been known to the Government. The tariff system, the quota system, the scarcity system of the Government, is deliberately designed to create food scarcity in a hungry world. The Amendment on the Order Paper, together with the speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Debate last Thursday, rather


suggests that hon. Members on this side are guilty of some inconsistency in recognising the need for lifting the price of primary products as the basis of world prosperity and then objecting to the consequent rise in retail prices. I should like to invite the hon. Member who is responsible for the Amendment on the Order Paper to spend half an hour in the Library reading the Linlithgow report. Let me give a short extract from it:
Agriculturists resent a state of affairs which leaves the food producers inadequately remunerated while the agencies standing between them and the consumer remain apparently undisturbed in the enjoyment of their rewards.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I should like to know what the co-operative societies are getting?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) need not ask that question, because I shall always assume that it is constantly in his mind.
The marked difference between the consumer of primary products and the producer is; a common feature of every industry at the present time, but it is doubtful whether it has ever been so much in evidence as during the past two years. Our investigations have led us to the conclusion that the spread between producers and consumers is unjustifiably wide. Taken as a whole it casts a far higher burden than society will permanently consent to bear.
I invite the hon. Member to tell us in what way the fair price of primary products has been raised in the last few years, and has, as a natural result, contributed to the rise in retail prices. I invite the attention of the House to one or two figures. In the Wisbech potato area, King Edward VII potatoes are now being sold at an average figure of £5 per ton. They are landed in London, and the carriage is 9s. 5d. per ton. They are landed at King's Cross and St. Pancras and are sold in London at £11 per ton. In other words, the cost of the potato on my table has increased by 100 per cent. There is another inferior potato called the Majestic, which is landed in London for £4 a ton and sold at a retail figure of £8 per ton. There is every room for a rise in the price of primary products without disturbing at all the already inflated retail prices which are imposed on the working classes. Take milk. The spread between the wholesale price of milk and the retail price is, according to the Linlithgow report, an

entirely unjustifiable spread. The United Dairies Company has managed to pay a profit of 12½ per cent. for several years, and their £1 ordinary shares have in the last 18 months gone up to a figure which would make the mouths of most investors in this House water.
Take coal. The average price of coal at the pit head is 15s. a ton, and the price of graded coal 18s. to 20s. It is sold in London for 53s. per ton. There is no relation at all between primary product prices and retail prices. There is every room for inquiry and action on the part of the Government to bridge this entirely unjustifiable gulf between the reward of the primary producer for the adventurous work he undertakes, either in the raising of stock or the raising of crops or the excavation of coal, and the entirely unnecessarily inflated prices which are extracted from the consumer by a wasteful retail system which is in urgent need of modernisation and rationalisation. The Government cannot be indifferent to the fact that the prices of foodstuffs are increasing beyond the purchasing capacity of large sections of our population, and unless some promise is given by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government are aware of this unjustifiable spread between the price of the primary product and the retailed article, it will be convicted of being a conniving party at the existence of this unsatisfactory and unjustifiable state of affairs.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: I beg to move, to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
recognises that the upward trend of prices from their previous low levels was essential to trade recovery, also that the rise in the cost of living reflects a general revival of demand due to better employment and earnings, and welcomes the efforts of His Majesty's Government to facilitate increased efficiency in production and distribution and to secure satisfactory returns to efficient producers consistently with reasonable prices and adequate supplies to consumers.
I appreciated the moderation and fairness with which the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan) moved the Motion. He made an admirable speech in which he endeavoured to avoid exaggeration. I might have said the same thing about the speech of the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley), who seconded the Motion, except that I think he allowed himself to be drawn into


a little exaggeration when he dealt with what he described as the scarcity policy of the Government. In moving the Amendment, I shall endeavour to be brief. Recently my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) made demands for a new clock in order that hon. Members in certain positions in the House might be able to keep their speeches short. Now, we have that new clock, but as the hands have pointed to three minutes past four since the House met, I am afraid that if I looked at that clock, I might go on speaking for the whole night.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for the Park Division say that the rise in the cost of food and other commodities was a political issue of the first magnitude, and I am delighted that that issue has been brought before the House, because I know of no better wicket upon which His Majesty's Government can bat than upon the rising cost of living. I am delighted to have this opportunity of justifying the Government's policy down to the hilt. The hon. Member was good enough to say that he was not one of those who objected to a rise in the prices of primary commodities, but he complained about the great difference between the retail and wholesale prices. I am afraid that the hon. Member was a little disingenuous, because if that is the case, why, when he was comparing the 1937 figures with those of an earlier year, did he always choose 1932, during the slump, when wholesale prices were at their lowest level since the War, and a year in which retail prices were almost at their lowest level. The same applies to the arguments of the hon. Member for Clay Cross, who took as his basis 1933, which had the lowest level of retail prices during the slump. I think I am justified in asking both hon. Members whether they wish to go back to the wholesale prices of 1932 or the retail prices of 1933. If they do, I will tackle them on the whole question of the price level. If they do not, I suggest that they had no business, when dealing with the cost of living, to take those particular years as a comparison.

Mr. Lathan: If the hon. Member reads my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I think he will find that I did not, in fact, invariably choose 1932 in making my comparisons. I took the years that have

been quoted in the Debates in the House on previous occasions. I think the hon. Member will find that those figures give quite a fair comparison.

Mr. Raikes: I think the hon. Member will agree with me that when he was referring to the family budget, he took the year 1932 as a comparison, and that 1932 was an incredibly bad year to take, if he believes that the prices of primary products ought to be increased and that low prices for primary products are bad. On the question of food prices, I am able to shorten my remarks to a certain extent, in view of the fact that hon. Members opposite are prepared to admit that a low primary commodity price is a bad thing. There is no need for me to give copious quotations from the report of the Royal Commission on food prices in 1924, which pointed out with considerable vigour that where you have, in a consuming country, manufactures too high and food too low, you are bound to get a period of friction when those prices are readjusted.
So far, hon. Members opposite and I are in agreement. I propose to see whether we cannot remain in agreement a little longer before we part company. It is very much better to see what it is on which we part company than to start fighting one another vaguely on matters on which there can be no real difference of opinion. I have the agreement of hon. Members that any rise in commodity prices is an advantage to trade and to employment. Hon. Members know as well as I do that when prices are rising the buyer goes into the market to sell because he knows that there is a chance of selling goods at higher prices than those at which he bought them. He sells the goods, and buys new goods, and goes into the market again to sell them, so that industry and employment are stimulated. Hon. Members will also agree that when prices are rising it is far easier for men going into industry to borrow money; with rising prices they can pay the interest on the loans and at the same time get the industry going. I think that hon. Members will probably agree on the third point, that when prices are rising it is easier for any Government to collect taxation, because although taxation may be higher in the pound, it is at the same time lower in the commodities which the producers produce. So far hon. Members and I are in agreement.
I come now to the point where I think we part. We agree with a rise in the price level up to a point, but how far? At what point is it to stop? I venture to remind hon. Members of the report of the Macmillan Committee which was, I suppose, one of the most expert committees which ever dealt with the question of the world depression. That committee laid down that an ideal price level would be the price level of 1928, a year which was not mentioned by either of the hon. Members who have spoken. I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Members to a statement made by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) who is something of an economist. The hon. Gentleman took the year 1929 as being the year that ought to be taken as a basis for the price level if we wanted to get back to prosperity. If hon. Members opposite wish to criticise the Government, I think that rather than make comparisons with the years 1932 and 1933, it would be more fair if they considered the condition of affairs to-day, over the price level and over wages, as compared with 1929, the last year of prosperity, and 1928, instead of taking a year when we were in the trough of the world depression and had over 2,000,000 unemployed. I am prepared to quote both the wholesale and retail prices, but I do not wish to hide myself behind them. Taking 1929 as the basic year for wholesale prices, at a figure of 100, in 1928 wholesale prices were 101.2; in 1929, on an average, 100; and in October of this year they were 96.4. Therefore, roughly speaking, in the last quarter of 1937 we are still 3.6 below the 1929 wholesale prices, which the hon. Member for Oxford University wants, and no less than 4.8 per cent. lower than the wholesale prices asked for by the Macmillan Committee.
Now I come to retail prices. Taking the Ministry of Labour figures and comparing 1929 with the present year we find that in 1929 the figure, in 1914 terms, was 164. In the September quarter of 1937, which is the last full quarter in respect of which we have information, the figure was 155. That is to say that retail prices, which are said to be so much swollen compared with wholesale prices, were nine points below the figure for the last year of prosperity, namely, 1929, and were practically level with the figure of the year 1930. At the same time, we have to consider wages. It is all very

well for hon. Members opposite to talk lightly about the course of wages and to point out that during last year the cost of living rose by a higher percentage than wages. Let us compare ordinary weekly wages in 1929 with wages to-day. Taking the 1929 figure as 100, the figure of wages for the September quarter of this year, the last full quarter which it is possible to give, is 103.5. So, in fact, the cost of living, both wholesale and retail, is lower than the year 1929 and wages are higher than they were in 1929. But that is not all. Since 1929 there was a fall in both wholesale and retail prices, far more rapid in proportion than the fall in wages. The difference is not simply one of actual earnings of a man per shift or per week. It is the difference between part-time wages and whole-time wages, between ordinary wages and overtime, between short time and full time. I assert with confidence, quite outside ordinary dry figures of statistics, although these statistics prove a lot, that the consuming power of the nation has risen steadily as compared with 1929.

Mr. Lathan: The hon. Member is anxious that we should go together as far as possible. I am sure he will agree that it is desirable that we should understand each other. Will he, then, explain whether his idea of progress is that we are all right as long as we are not worse off than we were eight years ago?

Mr. Raikes: I assure the hon. Member that that is not what I was endeavouring to indicate. I thought I had made it plain that we are better off both in wages and in cost of living than we were in 1929. There is no hon. Member opposite who can deny the figures I have given. There is a further feature. Apart from ordinary weekly wages, each year during the last few years there has been less short time and more full time and more overtime which, again, expands the amount of wages earned by the individual. I hope I have now made it plain to the hon. Member.
I pass to the question of tariffs. The hon. Member for Clay Cross pitched it rather high when he spoke of the policy of scarcity under which, he said, the Government were deliberately moving with the aid of the tariff. I presume his intention was to show that the cost of living is rising unfairly in this country in relation


to the rest of the world, as a result of the Government's tariff policy. Let us consider one or two figures in that connection. Taking the figure for 1930 at 100, the wholesale price of all articles in November of this year had risen to 108.5. Manufactured articles had risen from 100 in 1930, to 114.4 in November of this year. They were 115.4 in August of this year.
Now I come to the important point, namely, the figures in regard to basic industrial materials, because they are practically all on the free list, and therefore their rise or fall does not depend on the tariff policy of the Government, but rather on the world prices of those commodities. Again, taking 100 as the figure of price of basic industrial materials in 1930, we find that it fell to 70.9 in 1933, in August of this year it was 128.5 and in November of this year it had fallen rather sharply to 110.4. If we compare the non-taxed basic industrial materials with the taxed manufactured articles, there is a difference in August of this year of no less than 13 points. The untaxed articles are 13 points higher than the taxed manufactured articles, and in November there is a shift a very little bit the other way, and actually the manufactured taxed articles are four points above the untaxed basic raw materials. Surely those figures prove that whatever else our tariff policy has done or has not done, it has not raised prices generally in this country, because the price figure of the untaxed article for the whole of this year, until last month, has been actually higher, on the world level, than that of the taxed manufactured article.
Let us go a step further. We have heard a great deal about various food commodities such as potatoes and bread. Let us consider, first, wholesale prices of potatoes. The hon. Member for Clay Cross made a passing reference to the Potato Board. Is he prepared to say that as a result of the establishment of the Potato Board, which has given a market for British potatoes, the wholesale prices of British potatoes compare unfavourably, as far as the wholesale consumer is concerned, with the price prior to the establishment of the Board?

Mr. Ridley: I did not, obliquely or in any other way, refer to the Potato Board. The point I was making was that the

margin now between the price of the primary product and the retail price was so wide that there was plenty of room for a rise in the primary product price without increasing the retail price.

Mr. Raikes: I, of course, accept the hon. Member's statement that he did not refer to the Potato Board. He referred to potatoes among various other articles which have been affected by the Government's agricultural policy, and I thought he made a passing reference to the Potato Board. We now come to the question of retail prices in this connection, and I think I am justified in saying that potatoes to-day are actually selling, retail, at 2d. a lb. cheaper than they were before the Potato Board was established. It may be that there is too wide a margin between retail and wholesale prices, but—

Mr. Ridley: What figure did the hon. Member give?

Mr. Raikes: I said 2d. per lb. cheaper as compared with 1931.

Mr. Ridley: Impossible.

Mr. Raikes: Well, my hon. Friend who is going to second the Amendment will give the exact figures when he speaks.

Mr. Ridley: The average retail price of potatoes is in the region of 1d. per lb., and if they were 2d. less, they would obviously have fallen by 66⅔ per cent.

Mr. Raikes: I have the figures here. The figures for potatoes per 7 lbs. [Interruption.] Why not per 7 lbs.? The figures for potatoes per 7 lbs. in 1929 were 6½d.; in 1930, 5¾d.; in 1931, 8¼d.; in 1933, 5½d.; in 1936, 7½d.; and in October, 1937, 6½d.—a fall. My original statement, before the hon. Member interrupted, was that I thought I was correct in saying that there had been a fall in potato prices since the Potato Board was set up, which only goes to prove that tariffs do not of necessity increase prices. They do provide a market, and they do give a safe market where that market did not exist before. In regard to retail prices, it may be that to-day at times we get too big a gap between wholesale and retail prices, but I would like to ask the hon. Member who played that up so strongly whether in fact in those great co-operative societies to which reference has been made, they set an example by


selling at what is a reasonable profit as against the exorbitant profit which apparently is charged everywhere else, and if they do so, why have they not killed the trade of the profiteer?
Finally, I should like to say one word upon what is still an important point, and it is a matter which His Majesty's Government, I know, have very closely in mind. It is true to-day that wages are higher than in 1929, it is true that the cost of living is lower than it was in 1929, and it is true that the general consumption of goods throughout this country has risen. As a matter of fact, it was quoted in the House, in reply, I think, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) a few months ago, that in the course of the last six years you had had no less an increase than 20 per cent. in the amount of money spent by the community on semi-luxuries, such as tobacco, sweetmeats, and so on; and it was also quoted that during the last six years there had been an increase of somewhere about 10 per cent. in the consumption of alcoholic refreshments. Whether or not we approve of alcoholic refreshments—and I may say that I do—the very fact that you have a large increase in the amount spent upon semi-luxuries, such as tobacco, sweetmeats, beer, or what you will, proves that during the last six years, during the tenure of office of His Majesty's Government, the conditions of the people have improved, and steadily improved. Otherwise, it would have been impossible for that money to have been spent.
You have somewhere about £300,000,000 a year spent upon these semi-luxuries by the community to-day, and I do not know of any other community in Europe that is in a position to spend anything like that amount upon commodities outside of food. It is indeed an example of the good work which has been done by the Government, work which has made it possible for that increase, not only in consumption, but also in Post Office savings, which is again one of the best examples of the improved conditions of the people of this country. At the same time, we realise—no Member of this House, to whatever party he belongs, does not realise—that there are still those who are lagging behind in their conditions, those who are unemployed, those who are on public

assistance, those who are bound to some extent to be affected by any rise in the cost of foodstuffs or any other cost of living question; and I should like, if I may, to quote from a circular which was issued by the Ministry of Health, in November of this year, to all the local councils of this country, in regard to unemployment assistance. I want to quote it for this reason, that I think it cannot be made too clear to the councils throughout this country that it is the desire of the Government and of Members of this House, to whatever party they belong, that the unemployed should be treated fairly. This is what the circular says:
In order to ensure that relief granted is adequate in amount, the council will appreciate the importance, with the approach of winter and at a time when the prices of certain commodities are showing some tendency to rise, of keeping the position of recipients of relief under close review, in order to satisfy themselves that the relief they are giving is not in fact inadequate.
I ask the hon. Gentleman who is representing the Government to-night to make that assurance once more plain this evening, before we part for Christmas, in order that it shall be as clear as crystal to the country as a whole and to every council that we desire the cost of living to be considered when giving relief to those who are still sufficiently unfortunate not to have found work. There is one more quotation before I finish this rather rambling speech, which has gone on quite long enough, and I should like to take that quotation from the Macmillan report. I know that many hon. Members opposite think that the cost of living will rise too sharply and that we shall have a form of inflation, but this is what the Macmillan Committee said. They suggested that inflation might be caused by prices rising too high, but they said:
Nevertheless, we think it much more likely that attempts may be made to stop the revival prematurely than to allow it to proceed too far. We believe that this would be a great mistake. It is often argued, and it may well be true, that the power of the banking system to hold a business expansion in check is greater than its power to revive business when depression has set in. If, however, we are overprompt to check every expansion, yet hesitant in the face of every depression, the net result will be a steady lowering of the price level with all the attendant evils of such a prospect.
The danger still to-day is a check, and the bigger danger is a fall in the price level rather than a rise in the price level. A fall in the price level to-day means a


gradual return to the conditions from which we have drawn ourselves in the course of the past few years, and I am surprised that, in view of the increased employment, in view of the general improvement in business in the past few years, hon. Members opposite, whom I thank for the courtesy with which they have listened to me and for the fairness with which they have produced their case, nevertheless have the temerity to attack His Majesty's Government on a point where they have cleared up the mess which the Opposition played some part in creating, and which beyond that, the Government are going to continue to work for still further improvement in the lot of the people. The nation knows full well that conditions have improved and will not be carried away by any cheap talk in regard to the cost of living which obscures the fact that to-day the purchasing power of this nation is higher than at any time in its existence.

8.55 p.m.

Captain Macnamara: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like to join with my neighbour in Essex in expressing appreciation of the speech of the Mover of this Motion and of the fact that we are debating this subject. If there are talk, rumour and discontent in the country, it is naturally the duty of the Opposition to watch for it and to raise it in Parliament. Nobody welcomes it more than we on this side of the House do, for we are more than ready to face anything which may be put to us. I must say in passing that, although the Opposition are anxious to make capital out of the discontents of the moment, they would have been more than human had they spent a Wednesday evening congratulating the Government in 1933 when the cost of living was very low. It is true that every little penny on this and that commodity counts. It is true, on the other hand, that every penny counts in the other direction, in, for instance, wages or any other way in which income may be slightly higher than it was before. The pennies count in both directions, and if we are to talk about the case fairly we must consider whether the pennies we take on the one hand are balanced on the other. Although we may not yet be perfect, every quarter in the House will agree that our object is to see that no one through insufficient wages

or other sources of income lacks the normal necessities of life and reasonable comforts. On the one hand, a great rise in the cost of living would undoubtedly defeat our object, but, on the other, it should not be forgotten that the lack of wages and income would equally defeat our object.
The Opposition have made an attack on the Government both in the House and in the country for the rise in the cost of living. Of course there has been a rise, and no one on this side of the House will attempt to deny it. There has been a general rise in the cost of living in other countries besides England, and it is only fair to point out that it is considerably higher in France, Germany, Italy and the United States of America. It is going up in all those countries, and surely the general rise must have some effect on the cost in this country too.

Mr. Dingle Foot: Would the hon. and gallant Member give the figures for the United States?

Captain Macnamara: I am sorry I have not the figures with me, but I thought that it was a generally accepted fact. One hon. Member opposite raised the question of bread. The price of bread largely depends on the cost in other countries, and, incidentally, on the harvests abroad. What is happening in other countries does, therefore, affect this country. The Opposition blame the Government, first, for deliberately causing a rise in the cost of living; and, second, for allowing the cost to rise through their own mismanagement. They say that the burden on the people has become so great and intolerable that it would be better to turn out the Government and substitute for it one of their own.
I will trace the story of the cost of living through the graph since 1929. In 1929 the cost of living was very high, and running along that curve was the wages curve, which was also fairly high, while employment was fairly good. By 1933 the cost of living had dropped as low as it ever was. At the same time, wages were also at their lowest and many people drew no wages at all, for unemployment was at its worst. Then we see the curve turn, and in 1937 the cost of living line has gone up again. It is higher than in 1933 although not so high as in 1929, whereas the wages line is also higher than in 1929 and 1933. Added to that, there are more


people drawing wages now than there were then. In 1933 the wage-earners were often working on short time, whereas now they are working overtime. Surely hon. Members, to be fair, must admit that there is a relation between slump prices and low cost of living. That is a thing we have to make very clear, for sometimes it is glossed over.
The Opposition have suggested in their attack that the Government's agricultural policy has virtually been carried out at the expense of the consumers. I seem to remember being on certain Committees of the House when we were talking about subsidies at a time when the policy of the Government was deliberately to subsidise the farmer out of the general revenue, so that the consumer should have to pay and so that there should be no direct rise in the cost of foodstuffs. No one will deny the necessity for saving agriculture, which is still the greatest industry in the country. If we take 1911 as the basis, with an index figure of 100, in 1924 the producers' prices were 161, but they fell by 1931 to 120. Employment was falling and bankruptcies were rising. Now the index figure has, including subsidies, risen to 137. That is not as good as it should be, but it has had the effect of saving agriculture. Agricultural wages, which fell in 1933 to 30s. 6½d., have now risen by 10 per cent. to an average of 33s. 6½d. Since 1933 they have been increased in every one of the 47 county districts. We must not forget the question of national defence in that connection.
In addition to accusing the Government's agricultural policy, the Opposition accuse the import duties and the marketing schemes, which may or may not be accompanied with the quantitative regulation of imports. Import Duties are part of a general policy to which this Government have adhered and on which we stand. They are modest, and in any case agricultural products come in free from the Dominions. No one can deny, not even those on the Liberal benches, that the protective policy which has been followed since 1931 has stimulated employment in this country. From an unemployment figure of 2,812,000 in 1931 we have come down to the figure of 1,339,000.

Mr. Foot: Were we not told by the hon. Mover that we must take the year 1929?

Captain Macnamara: We had the slump in 1931. Hon. Members will recall that in that year other countries were using us as a dumping ground, simply shoving in butter, corn, eggs, and other things, and is it denied that our protective policy has been entirely responsible for protecting the working people of this country, so that now we find there are 1,500,000 more in work than there were then? The marketing schemes of the Government affect only three commodities.

Mr. Lathan: The hon. and gallant Member has been fastening upon us on this side a responsibility which really does not belong to us. I think he will find that the attack really came from newspapers which normally support the Liberal party.

Captain Macnamara: I was not in any way intending to couple the official Opposition with that attack. I was dealing with the Liberal Opposition. I know perfectly well that the Labour Opposition are in complete accord with the Government's excellent policy of Protection. I thought I had made it quite clear that I was speaking to the Liberal benches. The marketing schemes affect only three commodities—milk, potatoes and bacon. It is perfectly true that the price of milk has risen, and risen considerably, but I would point out in all fairness that the number of animals kept has risen since 1931—risen by 316,000, which is a 10 per cent. increase. That increase in the number of animals has meant extra work all round in this country, and therefore more wages instead of unemployment assistance. As a mitigation, to a certain extent, of this rise in the price of milk it must be remembered that the Government are helping to finance such schemes as the milk-in-schools scheme, by which 2,750,000 children are now getting milk at 1½d. a pint instead of the normal 3d. or 3¼., and they are also helping to finance other schemes for necessitous people and for those in the depressed areas. I know that the consumers' committee under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, are asking for an investigation into the costs of the distribution of milk, and if there is any chance of cutting out waste in distribution we on this side of the House will be just as glad to see it done as hon. Members opposite. If there is any waste in distribution which causes


a rise in the price of milk to the public we shall be only too glad to see it cut out, but at the same time I think this side of the House also stands for a fair profit for the middleman.
Bacon, another commodity affected by the marketing schemes, has risen in price but, as I have pointed out, markets are no longer glutted by foreign dumping, and the pig population of the country has increased by 40 per cent., probably because of the increase in the price of bacon.

Mr. Foot: From what countries was the bacon dumped?

Captain Macnamara: Denmark was one.

Mr. Foot: Dumped?

Captain Macnamara: I say it was dumped from Denmark into this country; and it was dumped also from Germany. I am asked, What is the definition of dumping? I do not propose to give a sort of dictionary definition, but dumping normally means that when too much is produced by one country for its own consumption the surplus is sent, with the assistance of the Government of that country, into this country—which had no protection to keep it out—doing anything to keep its own markets going at our expense. Our own production of pigs has gone up from 3,180,000 to 4,444,000. Bacon is now no higher than it was in 1930, and actually less than it was in 1929. If farming in this country has been protected against unfair competition and organised against chaos, I am sure there is no Member of the National Government on either side of the House who will object. In connection with the rise in the cost of living, although we often hear objections lodged against agriculture we never hear any objection to the increase in the price of fuel, light and so on, which is largely due, and rightly due, to the fact that coal miners' earnings have gone up per shift from 9s. 1d. in 1933 to nearly 10s. 10d. in 1937.
Now I want to ask whether, in fact, the cost of living has risen. Since 1933, the slump year—Yes, it has risen; since 1929—No, it has not risen. Taking into consideration food, rent, clothing, light, fuel, and miscellaneous items the cost-of-living index figure—taking it at 100 in 1914—was 143 in 1933, 160 in 1937

and be it noted 167 in 1929. There has been no real rise except from the slump period; but wages have also risen since that period. One of the points in the Motion is that the income of a family has not risen proportionately to the rise in the cost of living. I will discuss wages in some of the trades and industries, taking them at random. In the engineering trade in 1929 the skilled man was earning an average of 58s. 9d. a week, in 1936 63s. and in 1937 67s. 2d. The unskilled man was earning 41s. 10d. in 1929, 45s. 10d. in 1936, and 49s. 10d. in 1937.

Mr. Kelly: Will the hon. and gallant Member give the hours of work? Assuming the figures are correct, is that the wage for an ordinary week, or does it include overtime?

Captain Macnamara: That is for an ordinary week, and not for overtime. I am giving the figures published in the "Ministry of Labour Gazettee," which most people in this House will accept. I will take the boot and shoe trade. In 1929, men earned 56s. a week. That wage went down to 54s. in 1933 and it was still 54s. in 1936. It has now gone back to 56s. There was a wage of 34s. in 1929 for women, of 33s. in 1933, of 36s. in 1936 and of 37s. in 1937. Selecting at random, let me now take shipping. Take the position of the able seaman. He was drawing 180s. per month in 1929. That figure went down in 1933 to 162s., up again in 1936 to 175s. 6d. and it is now 180s. again. I will take agriculture. The wage there was 31s. 7½d. in 1929, it went down to 30s. 6½d. in 1933, went up in 1936 to 32s. 3½d. and went up again in 1937 to 33s. 6½d. So I might go on with many other trades.
Taking the average of the lot, on the published figures and with index figures as though the year 1924 stood for 100, in December, 1929, the rate of wages index figure was 98½, it went down in 1933 to 94—a great drop—in 1936 it had risen to 99—a considerable increase—and since 1936, in the last 12 months, has gone up again, and is now about 104. That is, in the last quarter of 1937. Although there has been an increase in prices between 1933 and 1936, wages have also increased. Although prices are not as high as they were in 1929, wages are considerably higher. I hope I may mention, in addition, the position of the unemployed,


because the Mover asked what was the position of the 1,500,000 unemployed. I do not want hon. Members to think that one does not speak with great sympathy on this subject, but I want, none the less, to point out the figures. A single man in 1929 was drawing 17s. This figure went down in 1933 to 15s. 3d. and it has gone back in 1937 to 17s. In 1929, a man with wife and three children was drawing 30s. per week, a figure which went down in 1933 to 29s. 3d. and which has gone up again now to 35s. So the unemployed man is better off now than he was in 1929, although prices are not so high.

Mr. McGovern: Would the hon. Gentleman, when he is giving—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): Many hon. Members want to speak and there are far too many interruptions.

Mr. McGovern: I rose to ask a question upon a point, and the hon. and gallant Member gave way. I understood that the procedure of this House allowed for a question being put if the Member speaking was willing to give way. I wanted to ask him, while he was giving that favourable statement, whether he was aware that a large number of families in this country had suffered great reductions in income because of the means test and that a large number of people were drawing no allowances who were formerly doing so; and whether he would deal with that point?

Captain Macnamara: It would be almost impossible for me to go into the question of the means test, I tried to do so, but it varies so much that it is difficult to do so in the course of the Debate. I will try to cut the figures short. We are now going through a period when prosperity is rising and wages are rising and may possibly lag a little behind the increase in the cost of living. On the other hand they may just about keep level. I think hon. Members will find, if they look into the question of wages, that the increased family budget will cover the increases in the actual cost of living. It was right of the Opposition to raise this matter and it was equally right on our part to explode the bubble. I feel that the Opposition Whips were probably going hunting, looking for something to hunt, and their hounds thought they had raised

a hare, instead of which they have discovered that the hare is but a field mouse. Their followers are looking with some disdain at the pack. It is right to show up these comparisons, but it would be trite on our part to show up the comparison with the slump figures, the increasing depression, rising unemployment and falling wages, coupled with a decrease in the cost of living, and not the present growing prosperity, rising employment, and rising wages, coupled with a slight increase in the cost of living.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Foot: There was a certain lack of co-ordination between the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. When the mover spoke about prices, he objected to any comparison with 1931 or 1932, and we were told that the only possible years for comparison were 1928 or 1929. When the Seconder was speaking there was a change of front. Then the comparison had to be with 1932 or 1933. We imagine that history began for hon. Members on the other side only in 1931. Those two entirely different sets of figures are always adopted by hon. Members opposite when they are speaking respectively of the cost of living and the state of trade. I would very much like to hear the Seconder on some occasion define where the dividing line lies between normal and legitimate trading and dumping, because it was quite fantastic to suggest, in the matter of bacon, that the Danes have simply sent their surplus bacon here, or that they did at any time with Government assistance. Their bacon is sent here as by far the greater part of their output, and at a legitimate profit.
The hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan) did a very useful service when he raised this subject this evening. Because there can be no doubt—and I do not think it was really denied in the speeches of hon. Members opposite—that the rise in the cost of living must inflict, and is inflicting, very severe hardship on the poorest classes of the community. That there is a rise in the cost of living neither of the hon. Gentlemen opposite has sought to deny. There have been a number of figures quoted, and I do not want to add greatly to the total, but the figures given, I think, are mostly from shops in London and in the Midlands. I was in my constituency last week-end, and one of my constituents who is a grocer supplied me with two lists of prices taken


from his own advertisements in the local newspapers. One was the list in 1934 and the other the corresponding list at the end of November, 1937.
There are 22 items in these lists, all items of common consumption in Scotland. Of these 18 show an increase, in most cases a substantial increase, only one shows decrease, and in three cases the figure is the same. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) has spoken about the price of butter. These lists show that colonial butter was 10d. a lb. in 1934, and it now stands at 1s. 3d.; Danish butter was 1s. 2d. and is now 1s. 5d.; fresh butter rose from 1s. 1d. to 1s. 6d.; imported eggs rose from 1s. to 1s. 2d.; colonial cheese rose from 8d. to 10d. lb.; cheddar cheese from 6d. to 9d. lb. and margarine from 3½d. to 5d. lb. I could go through a long list of items, nearly all of them showing very substantial increases. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about sugar?"] I have not got sugar here; I am merely giving the list supplied to me, and the items were supplied as being strictly comparable. The Motion refers to that section of the public which is already suffering on account of inadequate resources.
The hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) referred to the circular issued to public assistance committees by the Ministry of Health. That circular was very much on the same lines as the circular that was issued two or three months ago by the Unemployment Assistance Board to its officers in the various areas. Of course it was admitted by implication, in issuing that circular, that difficulties were being occasioned to unemployed households by the rise in the cost of living, because it will be recollected that the Board advised its officers to give additional relief in certain cases where hardship would be occasioned by the increase in prices. The cases which were to receive relief were those cases where over 50 per cent. of the total personal income was represented by allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board. Everybody naturally is glad—and I dwell on this because these points were rather stressed by hon. Members opposite—that these increases should be made.
But what of the other households who come under the jurisdiction of the Board? What of those who do not get the extra

2s. or 3s. per week because more than 50 per cent. of the total household income happens to come from some other source? Will it be suggested by hon. Members opposite that they are not also hit by this additional burden—that this increase in the cost of living, and particularly in the cost of food, is not going to be an extra hardship for them? Of course, they will have to bear the burden as well. They will have to carry it in a different way, because in the vast majority of these cases which are not to get the additional allowance it means that the extra burden will have to be carried by the other members of the household. The effect, therefore, is to intensify the operation of the means test.
My only quarrel with the Motion before the House lies in the analysis that is put forward at the end of the causes of the rise in prices. It does not seem to me that that analysis is complete, and I attach considerable importance in this respect to the policy that has been pursued for the last five years by His Majesty's Government. Since 1932 the Government have pursued a policy deliberately designed to make commodity prices higher than they would otherwise have been. The hon. Member for South-East Essex gave some figures as to the prices of goods which come into this country duty free, and of goods which come into this country and upon which a duty has to be paid. That does not really meet the point. I do not think the hon. Member or any other hon. Member opposite would deny that, in the case of food at any rate, if we were to take the duties off to-morrow the prices would fall. Certainly that has never been denied in any Debate on this subject that I have heard in this House. If that is admitted, of course it means that prices are kept higher than they would otherwise be, and the Government must take the responsibility for the present level in prices. The rise in the cost of living is not an accident; it is the effect which the Government deliberately intended to bring about.
In this matter of tariffs, which has been discussed so much this evening, hon. Members opposite are always trying to give the impression that this country is only a moderate offender. I heard with interest the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Captain Macnamara) when he spoke of our "modest" tariffs. It is


not always easy to make an exact comparison of the duties imposed by different countries, but I have here a number of figures which were compiled only a month or two ago by the World Business Information Centre for the information of the delegates at the International Chamber of Commerce in Berlin. They compiled figures representing the percentage ratio of Customs duties collected to the value of the imports on which those duties were levied. I am taking the figures for 1935, the last year for which complete returns were available. The figure for Great Britain is 26.9.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Does that include tobacco?

Mr. Foot: I cannot say. I agree that it does represent excise, but in order to satisfy the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and show what a difference there is, I can also give the figure for 1913. In 1935 the figure was 26.9 compared with 4.9 in 1913.

Mr. Williams: What was the tobacco duty in 1914?

Mr. Foot: I am ready to admit that the tobacco duty was lower, but I do not think even the hon. Member for South Croydon with his well-known capacity to misrepresent statistics—

Mr. Williams: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that our Customs duty from tobacco exceeds our Customs duty from every protected source whatsoever—that single duty is more in value than all the other put together?

Mr. Foot: I am not prepared to deny that. But, even so, that does not account for the rise between the years 1913 and 1935 from 4.9 to 26.9. Other countries also impose an excise duty upon tobacco, and the comparison I was proposing to make is a comparison between this country and other countries. We are told that our own tariffs are very modest, but, while this country has a figure of 26.9 the United States has a figure of 18.9, Argentina 23.1, Holland 10.6, Norway 13.5, Switzerland 23.9, and Belgium 8.6. In fact, the only countries in this list which have a higher figure are Germany, with 27.5, and Italy, with 41.3. In view of figures like these, it is completely illogical to suggest that we have only modest

tariffs, which can have no effect on the level of prices in this country.
It has been argued from the opposite side of the House that this rise in retail prices reflects only a normal world recovery, that it is something for which we ought to be grateful. That would be a sound argument if prices had only risen in this country in the same proportion as prices have risen elsewhere. I have a further set of figures showing the movement of wholesale prices in 30 countries from May, 1935, to May, 1937. I will not read them all. We come eighth in the list of 30, and we show a percentage increase of 20.4. An hon. Member opposite has quoted the United States, where an inquiry is being held into this matter. There the increase is only 11.2 per cent. In Norway it is 19 per cent., in Canada 18.5 per cent., in Sweden—which has probably a much higher degree of industrial recovery than this country—17.8, in Denmark, 16.6, and so on throughout the list. Taking this list of countries to some of which I have referred, it is obvious that the price level here does not just reflect the trend of world prices. We have experienced a rise considerably greater than has occurred in some of the other countries to which hon. Members opposite have referred.
The last argument that was used, and it is, I think, the most formidable argument that has been used from the other side of the House, was in relation to wages. It was said that the rise in the cost of living was being offset by higher wages. All of us on the Opposition side can, I think, understand the force of the argument that most people would prefer to be in work and drawing wages, even if they have to pay more when they go to do their shopping. No one on this side has denied that; it was not denied by either the Mover or the Seconder of the Motion. But the hon. Member opposite referred to the race that was going on between the rise in wage levels and the rise in prices. Our complaint on this side is simply that the rise in prices is winning that race. The hon. Member shakes his head. I would refer him to the calculations that were made in the "Economist" of 27th November last. Taking the average for the whole year up to 27th November, according to those calculations wages have been between 3 and 4 per cent. above last year's level, while the cost of living figure has been 6 per cent.


higher, and food prices taken by themselves have been 8 per cent. higher, showing, therefore, something like twice the increase that there has been in wages. Surely, when prices are rising faster than wages, and when they are inflicting these hardships, which hon. Members opposite do not seek to deny, that is a situation which demands the anxious and constant attention both of the Government and of this House.
Some reference has been made to the fiscal views of Members on these benches. We do not abate in any way our objection to a system of food taxes. We opposed them in 1931, and we oppose them now. The hon. Member opposite referred to the question of agricultural subsidies. I dislike agricultural subsidies, but, as between the two, I would far rather have a subsidy than a tariff. At any rate, a subsidy is raised out of national taxation imposed on some kind of scientific principle, but a food tax, as we see it, is simply an inverted Income Tax, designed, and deliberately designed, to place the heaviest burden upon the shoulders least able to bear it.

Captain Macnamara: Is there any tax on food coming from the Dominions?

Mr. Foot: There is not at this moment any tax on food coming from the Dominions, but I think a quota is imposed on certain foodstuffs from the Dominions.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am very glad to hear from the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) that he is not entirely opposed to subsidies. I may take it now that whenever it is necessary for me to appeal for some assistance for my sugar-beet factory at Cupar, the hon. Member will not forget his important announcement to-night to the effect that he does not oppose subsidies so much as he opposes something else.
I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments, because I recognise that there are some other Members who are anxious to take part in the Debate. I want, not only to acknowledge the temper of the speeches of the Mover and Seconder, but to congratulate them on their good fortune in the Ballot, and on their good sense in choosing this particular

subject, because without doubt it is a subject of very great importance to the whole country, to our industries, to which the cost of living is a matter of vital importance in assessing the cost of production, and to the whole general body of our citizens whose livelihood is involved. I think that the House is fortunate to-night to have had this opportunity.
I would suggest that we shall approach the subject with, perhaps, more success if we distinguish at the very start between the various effects of this rise in prices. Of course, we all recognise the rise in prices, and it is mentioned specifically in the Amendment. But I would suggest to the House that we have to consider two things separately, first, the general effect of the rise in prices upon the nation as a whole, and, second, its effect on certain limited sections of the nation. With regard to the latter, no one here denies that a rise in prices, no matter how small or gradual or upon what commodities it may fall, has an immediate adverse effect upon the unemployed, pensioners, and others with fixed incomes. But I submit that, taking the country as a whole, even taking the working classes as a whole, the people to whom I have been referring only represent a minority, and that the majority of people in this country, and, indeed, the majority of working people in this country, not only do not suffer from this rise in prices, but gain actual advantage from it. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] I will try to explain. I suggest that they gain an actual advantage from the rise in prices that has taken place during the last two or three years. I admit, of course, that the ideal system for this country would be a low price level and a large volume of employment. That would satisfy all of us. But we know that that is not what happens.
I am not going to attempt to discuss the economics of the situation—there is not time; but it is within the memory of Members of the House that it works the other way. In 1933, you had a period of very low prices and high unemployment. In 1929, you had a period of high prices and much employment. We have come round again this year to a situation somewhat similar. We have more employment than ever before in the history of this country; more people registered as in work than ever before, and there has been a rise in the general level of prices.


I do not think that any hon. Member can really suggest that that increase in employment, that increased demand for goods, and all the other things that have accompanied it—the increase in unemployment assistance, the improvement in the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the great extension in housing and so on—affecting the general body of the working classes, are not for their definite advantage. I have been in this House only five years, but I can recall hon. Members over there saying repeatedly that the main cause of the trouble during the depression was the low level of commodity prices, and every hon. Member was urging the Government to take action with foreign Governments somehow or other to raise that low level of commodity prices. I fail to understand how they can complain when this Government, having acted on their counsel, have succeeded, in association with others, in raising very considerably the general level of prices. We have done the very thing they asked us to do.

Mr. Gallacher: Would you care to go and tell this very interesting story to the miners of Fife?

Mr. Stewart: I did so only last Friday. I do not think any one on this side makes any apology for this increase in prices. On the contrary we take pride in the fact—[Interruption]—let me complete my sentence—that there is a substantial recovery in the level of commodity prices—which was the unanimous demand of all Members of this House in the days of depression. I feel that I have substantiated my first claim, that the general body of workers do not suffer, but in fact gain, by this. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion complained that there had been a fall in the consumption of foodstuffs. He was not taking the country as a whole: he knew he could not do so, for of course the consumption of food supplies generally has been very largely increased. In food and tobacco, the increase in consumption in the last six years has been 20 per cent., and in boots and shoes 25 per cent. The hon. Gentleman was referring to the limited class of unemployed persons, and he said that this rise in prices had caused a definite reduction in consumption by those people. I should have thought that a very dangerous argument for any hon. Member on that side to take, because

while they were in office there were more people unemployed and the cost of living was much higher, and if these people are suffering now, they must have been starving during the Labour party's period of office. Actually that was not so.
If I may say so, the danger at the moment—I imagine I have all hon. Members with me when I suggest this—is not the actual level of prices, which is a good deal lower than when hon. Members opposite were in power, but rather the speed with which prices are rising. I am sure that that is what is causing anxiety. In that respect, I agree with hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment quoted the Mac-Millan report in warning against over-restricting price recovery. It appears to some of us that in America President Roosevelt has actually restricted too quickly the recovery in prices. There is one danger. But do not let us neglect the other danger—allowing the rise to be too steep. I would give two examples of the ill effects that may be felt by allowing the price rise to continue unchecked. I take the case brought constantly to my notice in East Fife, of old age pensioners; and of these people I will take just two classes. One is the single man of over 70, living alone on 10s. a week. The other is the married man of over 70 whose wife is yet too young to get the pension, so that there are two people living on 10s. a week. These classes are really having a difficult time now. It would be out of order for me to go into this, but nothing would give me greater pleasure than if some little improvement in the pension rights of these people could be made. [An HON. MEMBER: "Would you vote for that?"] If I saw any way to do it, I would introduce a Bill or Motion, but I have been unlucky in the ballot.
I hope the Government, in their reply, will give us the assurance, that although welcoming the rise in prices, they do not propose to let it go unchecked or un-watched. It is vital that we should prevent profiteering. I do not think anybody on this side would seek to defend profiteering. The Prime Minister has been repeatedly urged to prevent it in the case of rearmament, and I am sure the House will be equally determined that it should be prevented in the case of food prices. I ask the Minister for an assurance that wherever profiteering is evident,


corrective steps will be taken, and that, in addition, his Department, the Food Council and any other appropriate organisations will constantly scrutinise the position.

Mr. Gallacher: You are for and against.

Mr. Stewart: I am taking the practical view. I ask the Government to do that, remembering always that this country is a great industrial country, that the cost of production here is a vital element in our export trade, and that it would be an ill day for us if our costs became so high as in any way to reduce our essential exports.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Banfield: I listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches made by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. The speech of the Mover put me in mind of the small boy whose parents did not believe that such a thing as pain existed. One day the small boy had a very bad attack of the bellyache and complained to his mother, who said, "You have no pain, my son." The boy replied, "I have got inside information." He tried to persuade the working people of this country that all they had to do was to count their blessings one by one—blessings given to them by the National Government. He said that there may have been a rise in prices but that everybody, on the whole, is more comfortable. He forgot a very important point. You cannot deceive the women of this country by telling a tale of that kind. His other comment was quite right. This is going to be a political issue, and I want to draw the attention of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment to this fact. There are millions of men in this country who have wives and families, and who are paying the high rents that are paid to-day in our industrial centres, whose wages never reach, even with overtime, anything like 50s. a week. In my constituency, thousands of men are working for 40s. or 42s., or round about that sum. Cannot hon. Members see as well as I can, the position of the wives of these men, with their little children around them and food prices going up to an extent which means an additional 2s. or 2s. 6d. a week out of the little money they have with which to buy food? It is not sufficient to tell the working people of this country of the blessings of the National

Government in face of the rise in food prices. The women will want to know where the money is to come from with which to pay for the rise in prices.
The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Captain Macnamara) said something about bread. He recognises that there has been a rise in the price of bread. Do hon. Members realise that when bread goes up a penny per quartern loaf it means a total extra expenditure of £9,000,000 per year, the greater part of which comes out of the pockets of the poorest of the poor—the men on low wages, the unemployed men, men on short time and the old age pensioners? These people cannot afford to buy anything else but bread, which is their mainstay. The hon. and gallant Member says "We cannot help that; it is dependent upon the harvest." The hon. and gallant Member represents an agricultural constituency and I do not, but I can tell him that during this year there have been wild and violent fluctuations in the wheat market. Gambling has been going on ever since the beginning of the year, and it still continues. The price of wheat has fluctuated as much as seven and eight points in a month. The price of flour goes up by 1s., 2s., 3s., 4s. a sack. It comes down by 1s., 2s., and 3s., and then, up it goes again. It means that gambling goes on in the main food of the people of this country, and that fortunes are made by people who gamble in wheat and cargoes.
Have we not the right to call the attention of the Government at least to this phase of the question of the rise in food prices? The price of bread has gone up in about 18 months to the extent of £18,000,000. Cannot something be done to stop the speculation in food and in wheat? No one has said anything tonight about the excessive costs of distribution in relation to food prices. Bread is produced in this country, including wages and everything else, for something less than a penny per 4 lb. loaf. If you go to a baker in London, Manchester or in any of the great cities, he will tell you that, while it costs less than a penny to produce it, it costs more than 1½d. to distribute it. We have not a sane system in this country either of distribution or of production. If so, we should not have the silly system we have now in which a baker in Manchester makes bread and delivers it in Liverpool, and a baker in


Liverpool makes bread and delivers it in Manchester, the poor consumer having to pay the price.
The Labour party has never stood for low prices for the primary producers. We believe and proclaim that the primary producer is entitled to the fruits of his labour. Agricultural labourers' wages to-day of 35s. or 36s. a week are an absolute disgrace to the country that pays them, but between the price that the farmer receives for his commodity and the price that the consumer has to pay, someone or other robs the people of this country, and that accounts in very great measure for some of the high prices. The hon. Member referred to the question of wages. He said that prices have gone up, but so also have wages. Whose wages have gone up? The Ministry of Labour Gazette quotes certain figures, and shows where it gets the returns. It gets them from the trade unions. I make a return every time my people receive an advance in wages. I give the number of people, and so on. But does that really account for the great masses of the people in this country? There are people who had their wages cut in 1931 who have never yet received any of those wages back again. The condition of millions of our people is such that they have only a bare existence from one year's end to another. Their wives grow old before their time, and their children cannot be looked after as they ought to be, simply and solely because we have a system under which we can produce everything we want, and yet we have not the sense to know what to do with it when we have produced it.
Why should the workers of this country be tied to a fodder system. If one comes down to brass tacks, he must realise that the wages of the workers are dependent upon the price of food. You have to give them so much on which to live even if it is only bread and butter. The standard of life, in view of the rapid growth of productivity, should rise fast and continuously, and should not be bound down to food prices at all. I want the Minister to realise that the question of food prices is fundamental so far as our people are concerned. It is all very well for the supporters of the Government to be so self-complacent. I do not think that any right-thinking men or women on any side of the House can

be complacent if they look round this country and see the poverty and destitution which exist now, as they always have. Surely, with all the advantages of a modern age, we ought to make the lives of our people more comfortable, and to remove their poverty. There is not a man in this House who has a clear conscience about the question of the old age pensioner and his 10s. a week. Why do we not do something to alter that position? It is all very well to quote figures. We have had figures quoted to-night until everybody has become confused. We cannot feed the people on figures. We cannot put figures on the breakfast table. We cannot deceive the woman, when she has done her shopping, by quoting what has been said to-night. If I said to my wife: "My dear, you are a lot better off than you were in 1929," I should have to dodge out at the back door.
It is the avowed object of the Government to raise prices. My complaint is that they do not pay the primary producer as they ought to do. As a trade unionist and as the secretary of my own organisation I say that in the trade union movement it is our duty, in face of rising prices, to say to our members that they must have more wages in order to pay the increased prices. It is our job to see to it that if prices are to be raised the wherewithal must be found for our people. That argument also applies in regard to the unemployed, the old age pensioner, the health services and the social services. It is no use disguising the fact that the people who are hit by rising prices are the people who can least afford them. It does not matter much to hon. Members of this House if there is a rise in prices. A rise of 2s. or 3s. is nothing to them, but I know from long and bitter experience what the position is in the homes of poor people. I was brought up in a house of poverty. Our income was 17s. a week, and there was my mother, father and six children to be kept out of it. If the price of bread went up one halfpenny, we little children had to go short of something.
What is the use of hon. Members declaring that consumption is as high as it was before? Every hon. Member on these benches, knowing the inside of working-class homes, knows that when the price of bacon went up the working people could no longer afford to buy it.


In working-class homes in any constituency, where the husband was bringing home 45s. a week, when bacon went up to 1s. 6d. a lb. the wife could not afford to buy half a lb. in order that her husband might have a bit of bacon on the Sunday morning. It is no use hon. Members telling us that we are not doing so badly, and that we are making the best of our case politically. As far as I am concerned, I care nothing about that. I stand for the working people and I speak on behalf of the dumb millions who do not know why prices rise, who do not understand economics, but who struggle on from one year to another on the verge of poverty, just keeping their heads up and making a brave fight of it. Nobody admires the working man's wife more than I do. I admire the fight she puts up for her husband and children, in order to keep the home together.
On these grounds I support the Motion, and I see no reason for the moving of an Amendment which is simply self-complacency, declaring that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. That is a policy that will not do. It is a policy for which hon. and right hon. Members opposite will have to answer in the country. It is a policy about which the women electors will challenge them. If they continue with such a policy, the country will be well rid of them when it gets the opportunity.

10.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): The hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes), on whose speech all those who listened to it would like to congratulate him, emphasised the point that it would be well if at this last Private Members' Debate before we go home for the Christmas holidays, we could see how far we agree. I should like to endorse everything he said in regard to the moderation and good temper in which this very important Motion was moved. I think we can start by agreeing that the recent rise in the cost of the main foodstuffs, which nobody seeks to deny—is not due to any enlargement of the credit basis but is simply a matter of supply and demand. Then we can go most of the way together in agreeing that the main reason for the rise, as the Amendment suggests, is the widespread strengthening of demand, owing to the general economic revival.
I hope we can go still further in agreement and say that no one in this House or outside it is likely to deny that the lowest price level of recent years coincided with the worst period of depression and the period of the most severe unemployment. The highest unemployment figure recorded in this country was 2,955,000 in January, 1933, and the lowest cost of living figure, 136, was reached in May, 1933. Finally, I do not think that any responsible person will deny, and certainly no one in this Debate has sought to deny, that a rise in prices was declared by the leaders of all parties, during the depression, to be an essential condition of recovery. I will not detain the House by reiterating the wise words of the late Mr. William Graham, whom we all knew, respected and loved, nor will I repeat what was said by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). In these circumstances it seems to me that for any hon. Member in any quarter of the House to cavil at these increased prices, which are the cause as well as the effect of better times, would be the height of ingratitude and illogicality. The hon. Member who moved the Motion was much too wise to do anything of that sort. He did not seek for one moment to attack the rise in prices as such. What he did attack was the alleged disproportion in the increase of the price level, compared with the improvement in purchasing power, which he admitted had taken place.
It is true that the prices to which the Mover referred have increased since 1933, but a comparison of prices with wage rates at that date does not give a complete picture as to the well-being of the community as a whole. I am bound to remind the House that in November, 1933, when prices were very low, 9,960,000 persons were in employment, and that in November, 1937, four years later, that figure had gone up to 11,573,000. I know there has been a slight change in the method of computation but the House will certainly not regard that as making any material alteration in the value of the figures. It is true that the man who was fortunate enough to have been in constant employment throughout the entire period of the depression might to-day find himself slightly worse off than he was four years ago; but there is not the slightest doubt that the mass of the insured population are better off to-day than they were


then. It has been mentioned by my hon. Friends that not only are there more now in employment, but that those who are actually at work are working less short time and in many cases are working overtime. Therefore, the figures of the increases in wage rates do not represent the full extent of the increase in money which people are taking home.
The whole argument put forward by hon. Members opposite, that wages have not risen to the same extent as prices, is based upon their taking the depth of the depression as their datum line. It seems to me that it is unsound to take an admittedly abnormal period as a yardstick for measuring prosperity or anything else, and the fact that that particular year was taken by the mover of the Motion has vitiated the whole of the comparisons he sought to draw from it. The year 1929 is generally admitted to be the last normal year. It was the year to the conditions of which the Macmillan Committee said we should endeavour to return. In those circumstances, I think it is a fair assumption that the wage rates and prices in that year were in reasonable equilibrium, and I would ask the House to note in the first place what happened between December, 1929, and December, 1933. During that period food prices fell by over 20 per cent., the cost of living index fell by over 14 per cent. and wage rates fell by only 5 per cent. Therefore, it seems not only probable but almost inevitable that during the process of restoring equilibrium to the economy of this country prices must rise rather more than wages for the simple reason that they have so much more leeway to make up. It is not surprising, therefore, that there has been a small decline, 3 per cent. to be correct, in real wages since 1933, despite the fact that money wages have increased by 9 per cent.
To make a real comparison, one must look at the position as it is to-day vis-à-vis December, 1929. If one compares December, 1929, with December, 1937, the cost of living index to-day is 4 per cent. lower, the index of food is 8 per cent. lower, and wages are 3½ per cent. higher. A simple calculation will show that on that basis, real wages to-day are 8 per cent. higher than they were in December, 1929. Therefore, although I do not for one moment seek to question the figures which the hon. Member who

moved the Motion presented to the House, the point which I wish to make with the greatest emphasis, is that by taking the depth of the depression as the datum line, the whole of the rest of the hon. Member's comparison was hopelessly vitiated for practical purposes. The Motion goes on to talk about people with inadequate resources. I must admit that it rather gave me cold shivers, sitting here after a good dinner and knowing that all of us are going home to-morrow for our Christmas-holidays, to have myself compared even indirectly with Scrooge.

Mr. Banfield: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not look it.

Captain Wallace: I admit that I was somewhat comforted on being told by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) that I have to-night an excellent wicket to bat on, which Scrooge certainly never had. I do not propose, in the time available this evening, to go into the general question of the condition of the people in this country to-day. That has been discussed recently and at length. I merely draw the attention of hon. Members to the Debate which took place as recently as 24th November and the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. One cannot get away from the fact that the consumption of food, drink and tobacco in this country is 20 per cent. greater than it was in 1929. No one will contend that that extra consumption is being absorbed by a few millionaires. No one can deny that the total expenditure in this country upon social services has risen from £468,000,000 odd in 1930, when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, to over £503,000,000 in 1935, which is the last year for which figures are available. No one can deny that there are to-day 3,000,000 children receiving cheap milk, and 400,000 children receiving free milk. No one can deny that when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, 27,500,000 free meals were given to children by local education authorities, and that now 100,000,000 are being provided. We have heard something about liquid milk. The sale of milk, for consumption in liquid form, in England and Wales has under the marketing scheme gone up by 16,000,000 gallons during the last year.
I come now to the question which I think is really the crux of the whole problem before us to-night, the question which was touched upon particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). A man who was out of work during the depression and who is in work now, is obviously very much better off, whatever the cost of living; but we recognise as much as hon. Members opposite that the people who have fixed incomes and who have not shared in the wage increases, have felt the increase in prices since the worst period of the depression, of which, admittedly, low prices were among the causes. But here again at the risk of being thought unsympathetic I must ask the House to look at certain facts. Let us take first of all people on unemployment insurance benefit. When allowance is made for the changes in the cost of living, the purchasing power conferred on the people drawing unemployment benefit shows these changes: Between 1st December, 1929, and the 1st of the present month, the benefit for a single adult man has gone up by 4½ per cent.; the benefit for a man and wife by 13 per cent., and the benefit for a man and wife and two dependent children by no less than 19 per cent. In all these cases the higher rates are now being paid than were being paid when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office.
Then we come to those unfortunate people who are drawing not benefit, but unemployment assistance. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex made particular reference to Circular 82 issued by the Unemployment Assistance Board instructing their officers to give special attention to households where a substantial part of the total income was represented by allowances from the Board. My hon. Friend asked me to give the House some assurance, even at such short notice, that the policy adumbrated in that circular was being carried out. I am glad to be able to do so without any qualification. I have since heard that the first review of cases receiving assistance since the circular was issued was completed on 30th November, and that as a result increased allowances are being made in some 250,000 cases.

Mr. Foot: Is it not a fact that in a substantial number of cases all that has been done is to forego making the cuts which would otherwise have been made?

Captain Wallace: I do not think that is the case at all; but that is not a question I can pursue at the moment. To pass on to another point—

Mr. Batey: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not saying anything further about that matter?

Captain Wallace: I have promised to leave some time for the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) referred particularly to old age and widows' pensions. I am bound to remind the House that these pensions were fixed when the cost of living stood at 215 as against the present figure of 160. I must also draw attention to the fact that it would be impossible to run a contributory pension scheme on the basis that payments should fluctuate with the cost of living. If that had been done, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury pointed out not long ago, the 10s. old age pension would be worth 6s. 9d.
In the Motion we have some reference to the duty of the Government to ensure the better organisation of production and distribution, but that is about as far as we have got. I have sat here during the whole of this Debate, and I have not heard even a whisper, either from the benches opposite or from the hon. Gentleman who represented the Liberal party and made precisely the speech that I should have expected, how the better organisation of production and distribution was to be brought about. It is perhaps a rather curious thing that we should, during the earlier part of to-day, have had an interesting discussion upon conditions in the distributive trades. I understand not only that it is generally admitted that conditions in those trades have considerably improved, but that it is suggested that they should be even further ameliorated, and I think the House will have to recognise that in so far as you ameliorate the conditions of people in the distributive trades, you are likely to accentuate the margin between wholesale and retail prices.
Now I want to touch on the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), who said that if you took off all duties and all restrictions on imports, it would have a substantial effect in lowering the cost of living. Actually, I think


it is very doubtful whether such action would achieve anything substantial on the lines which he hoped. Broadly speaking, it may be said that the normal interplay of the forces of supply and demand has had much more effect on the prices of foodstuffs than anything else, whether duties or quantitative regulation. If you take the retail prices on 1st December of this year and compare them with the retail prices on 1st December, 1930, the greatest increases in prices appear to be in flour and bread. These are cases in which the increase is due entirely to supply factors and not to Government action, because there is only a small duty on foreign wheat, and the greater part of our wheat is imported duty free from inside the Empire, and there is no quantitative regulation at all.

Mr. Banfield: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman point out to the House that for a considerable period, in fact, for four or five years, at least ½d. per quartern has had to be paid by the consumer so far as wheat subsides to farmers are concerned?

Captain Wallace: There is, finally, the question of profiteering, and here again no evidence has been produced, either by the Mover or Seconder of the Motion nor by any other hon. Member opposite, to show that profiteering does exist.

Mr. Lathan: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman regard 20 per cent. profit and dividend as being in the nature of profiteering?

Captain Wallace: It is absolutely impossible to tell; you cannot lay down any specific figure. We have a Food Council, and if the Food Council had reason to believe that profiteering was going on, they would have no hesitation in approaching my right hon. Friend on the subject. The Motion, quite rightly, does not condemn the upward trend of prices; it merely asks for better regulation of production and distribution. But nobody has given any clear explanation of what the Government are asked to do. It demands the elimination of profiteering, which it has not sought to prove, in order to keep the cost of living within proper limits which it has not sought to define, and which I think I have defined on the only fair basis. The Amendment, on the other hand, recognises two essential factors

—first, that the upward trend of prices is not only the effect, but also to a certain extent the cause, of our return to prosperity; secondly that reasonable prices and adequate supplies to the consumer must in the long run rest upon a proper return to the efficient producer. For these reasons I would ask the House to vote for the Amendment.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Before I begin my speech I should like to read the Motion which the House is discussing and which ultimately will be put to the Vote. It says:
That this House, taking note of the upward trend of prices without a corresponding increase in the income of the average household, is of opinion that the public, especially that section of it already suffering on account of inadequate resources, should be protected by measures for the better organisation of production and distribution and the elimination of profiteering in order to keep the cost of living within proper limits.
We have had an exceedingly interesting Debate, but I cannot help thinking that many hon. Members who have spoken from the other side have addressed their criticism of what has been said from our benches to objects of straw that they have set up and not to the Motion before the House. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Captain Macnamara) said that the Opposition no doubt thought they had got a hare which they were pursuing in this Motion, but that they would find out it was only a field mouse after all. I would really beg the House, I would beg the hon. Gentleman himself and I would beg the Government not to take that view of this very serious and grave subject. I can warn hon. Members opposite that if they take that view in their constituencies, they will find that their constituents do not take the view of them they expect. After what the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) has said, he certainly ought to vote for the Motion. He said he wanted to secure that there were no undue profits and that the cost of living was kept within limits, but I have no doubt that, as he has done on other occasions when some policy he advocates is put forward, he will abstain from voting and certainly not vote for this proposal.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that the Motion


concludes with a proposal which, if I understand it properly, is Socialism, and I cannot possibly vote for that.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: It concludes with the words:
better organisation of production and distribution and the elimination of profiteering.

Mr. Stewart: What is that but Socialism?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The elimination of profit-making is Socialism, but we are here making a distinction between profit-making and profiteering. The speech to which we have just listened has distinguished between them, so that the hon. Gentleman's interruption has no merit. With regard to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, I want to say we are all very fond of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in this House. He is always very polite and courteous, and I feel sure that his sympathies are always very well placed in many of these matters, but that fact does not prevent us from differing very strongly from him and from the views of the Government which he represents. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman tried, I think with the best of motives, to discover at the outset how far we were in agreement with him, and he put forward three propositions on which he thought we could go a very large part of the way with him, if not all the way. I do not agree with him at all. I radically differ from the views he put forward.
Let us see what has really come out of this Debate. In the first place, it is indisputably admitted on all sides that there has been a very considerable and rapid rise in the cost of living during the last few years. Hon. Members may say, "Why take the last few years?" and I shall come to that point in a little while, but the Motion is one calling attention to the rise in prices in the last few years, during which this Government, and this Government alone, have been responsible.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: May I ask—

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: No. I cannot give way. I do not wish to be interrupted any more. My time is very short.

Sir H. Croft: The Minister gave way.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Well, I will give way this time, but I shall not do it any more.

Sir H. Croft: Is it not a fact that every leader of the right hon. Gentleman's party demanded that rise in prices as the sole hope of world recovery?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: If the hon. and gallant Member had waited I was going to deal with that. That is a vital part of the subject we have been discussing. I was saying that no attempt had been made to deny that there had been a considerable rise in the cost of living in the last few years. It would be ridiculous to deny it, because it is patent. Put broadly, the facts are these: Taking the 1914 figure as 100, the index figure rose from 144 in December, 1934, to 160 in December, 1937. Measured in the terms of so much in the £, that amounts to a rise of no less than as. 3d. in the £ and if we had taken the rise in the cost of food only the figure would have been no less than 3s. in the £. It is true, also, that during those years wages have gone up. They have not risen quite as much, but, broadly speaking, it is correct to say that the rise in the wage-rates of those in work has nearly corresponded with the rise in the cost of living. Just as hon. Members opposite do not deny the rise in the cost of living, so we on this side do not deny the rise in wages, or the fact that there are more people employed and that more full time is being worked.
We come, however, to the position of pensioners and others with small fixed incomes. It must be clear to every Member who faces the facts that to-day those people are suffering a grievous reduction in their standard of life. When I followed the Prime Minister after his Budgetary announcement on 21st April of this year I pointed out that for old age pensioners, Army pensioners and others who come under the Ministry of Pensions, other superannuated people and, on the top of all those, people in humble circumstances living on small fixed incomes, the rise in the cost of living was a very serious matter indeed, and that it amounted at that time to a hidden tax of no less than £30,000,000 a year. That was on the basis of a rise in the cost of living of 1s. 8d. The rise with which we are dealing now is 2s. 3d., equivalent to a tax on that section of the population to no less than £45,000,000 per year. Those are the people referred to in the Motion. It is no use hon. Members attempting to deny that they represent a considerable section of our population and that a rise


in their cost of living has been a very serious and grave matter. I shall show presently how it has been reflected in their consumptive power.
It will be apparent to every hon. Member that there has been a change in the cost of living when he dines in the refreshment room. In the days when the cost of living was low we used to have a dinner that cost 3s. 6d. in the ordinary Members' room, if you took the full dinner, and 2s. 6d. if you took the shorter meal. In the last few weeks hon. Members will have realised that there is a very considerable difference between the substantial fare that was provided only a few months back and the somewhat exiguous meal provided for the same amount at the present time.

Mrs. Tate: That is the fault of the Kitchen Committee.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The hon. Lady must address her observations to the chairman of the Kitchen Committee.

Mrs. Tate: They are a most incompetent body.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The hon. Lady may attack the whole of the Kitchen Committee if she likes; the fact is that the committee are charged with the necessity of not throwing on to the taxpayer any part of the cost of feeding Members of Parliament. I am not complaining about those prices at all. Members have had a considerable increase in their salaries. I am only saying that if Members of Parliament were dependent upon meals at the same money as they paid before, they would feel very acutely the different size of that meal from what it used to be. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. M. Samuel) asked what was the total effect upon consumption. A good many figures have been given in different parts of the House, but I do not think that any hon. Member will challenge the figures that I shall give. Let us take some of the most staple foods. I am going to consider bacon, beef, mutton, potatoes and milk. I will answer the most important question which has been put in the Debate.
My figures are based upon very strong evidence. I cannot go further than 1936 because I believe that they have not been brought up to date. But I am going to compare 1932 with 1936. I find that the amount of bacon consumed per head of the population in 1936 was no less than

6½ lb. less than it was in 1932. Beef on the other hand had gone up 7 lb., but I find that mutton was down 3 lb. per head, potatoes were down 33 lb. per head, and with regard to milk I find this: there was a very small increase in the consumption of liquid milk—about two pints per head per annum. But I find that at the same time there was an immense reduction in the import of all tinned condensed milk; and therefore when you have taken that very small increase in the consumption of liquid milk together with the very great reduction in the import of condensed milk, I am inclined to think that the total consumption of milk per head was considerably less in 1936 than in 1932. Therefore, so far from it being a fact that these staple foods of the people are being consumed in much greater quantities per head, as every hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to assume, the facts are exactly the reverse. With the one exception of beef, all these foods show a decrease, which is most marked in bacon, potatoes and, as I believe, in milk.
Now what is the apology of the Government? They have said, though not in to-night's Debate, that there was no increase in the cost of living at all. In the second place, they have said it was not their doing; and in the third place they have said they ought to be praised for bringing it about. It reminds me of the classic answers of the old lady who was brought into court for injuring a dress that she had borrowed. Her three answers were, first, that she had never borrowed a dress; secondly, the dress that she borrowed was injured at the time that she borrowed it; and, thirdly, the dress when she returned it was in perfect condition.
First, as to the fact of the rise in prices. Hon. Members opposite have argued that we have not chosen the right date. They can go back to 1929 if they like, but what we are discussing is what has been changed during the years the National Government has been in office. They are perfectly entitled to say, "We want to get prices back to 1929," but that is not the issue. If that were the issue, we should have a very good answer. The increase of production is something like 3 per cent. every year. Our knowledge and control of the forces of nature and invention produce 3 per cent. more, and


we are certainly not going to be satisfied if all that addition of the last eight years, amounting to 24 per cent., goes to certain sections of the community while the working people have to be thankful for an increase of 2 or 3 per cent. in their real wages since 1929. What we attack is that, while the Government say they are making such progress, in fact the position for large numbers of the people of this country is worse than it was in 1932.
In the second place, they take no responsibility. It is perfectly clear, and nobody will deny it, that it does arise from two things which the Government have done. The first is their financial policy, and the second is the restrictive policy that they have followed with regard to individual commodities. I am not going to criticise the financial policy of the Government, because, on the whole, I agree with it. I agree that the policy of deflation had to come to an end, and that a reflation policy had to be substituted for it. Though, when we come to a certain stage of the trade cycle, and to an inflationary policy which results from unbalancing the Budget at the present time, I disagree.
It is not, however, on the monetary side of their policy that I would take the Government to task; it is on their restrictive policy—their tariffs, quotas and other devices. I do not think they can deny that the rise in prices has been due very largely to the policy they have adopted. No one on these benches denies that selling prices must be such as to provide proper remuneration for the producers, and particularly for the wage-earners. No one denies that some rise of prices from the slump was not only justifiable but necessary. Where we find ourselves in

disagreement with the Government is as to the method of creating the increase. The policy of scarcity has been pursued by the Government, and we say that the policy of scarcity is the wrong policy. We believe in the policy of abundance. But the economics of abundance presuppose production for use and not for profit. The economics of scarcity not only involve the ordinary consumer not getting the value of what could be produced for his benefit, but involve the producer only very occasionally securing the real profits. The profits go, under the policy of scarcity, to a small section of the population, who are able, through their stranglehold on a part of the process between production and distribution, to squeeze the consumer and the producer at the same time.

We on these benches believe in a steady price and a steady production. These fluctuations of prices up and down are injurious to the mass of our people. When prices are falling, those in control of industry pass on the effect to the workers by reducing their wages and bringing about unemployment. When prices are rising, the profits go to a small section of the community, and the Wage-earner only comes in at the very end, while pensioners and others suffer grievously. For these reasons I commend the Motion to the House as against the Amendment, and demand that the Government, if they are not prepared to nationalise industry, should at any rate check profiteering and secure that the rise in prices does not continue.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 174.

Division No. 76.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Ede, J. C.
Hayday, A.


Adams, O. (Consett)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Ammon, C. G.
Foot. D. M.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Frankel, D.
Hollins, A.


Banfield, J. W.
Gardner, B. W.
Hopkin, D.


Barnes, A. J.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Jagger, J.


Batey, J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Bellenger, F. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Grenfell, D. R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Charleton, H. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Kelly, W. T.


Chater, D.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Cluse, W. S.
Groves, T. E.
Lawson, J. J.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Leach, W.


Daggar, G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Lee, F.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Leslie, J. R.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hardie, Agnes
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Dobbie, W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
McEntee, V. La T.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
McGovern, J.




MacNeill Weir, L.
Ritson, J.
Walkden, A. G.


Marshall, F.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. 0. (W. Brom.)
Walker, J.


Mathers, G.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Watkins, F. C.


Milner, Major J.
Sexton. T. M.
Westwood, J.


Montague, F.
Silverman, S. S.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S)
Simpson, F. B.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Muff, G.
Smith, Bon (Rotherhithe)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Oliver, G. H.
Sorensen, R. W.



Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Quibell, D. J. K.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Mr. Lathan and Mr. Ridley.


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Tinker, J. J.





NOES


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Albery, Sir Irving
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Everard, W. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Findlay, Sir E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Lun.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Moreing, A. C.


Apsley, Lord
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Assheton, R.
Furness, S. N,
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J,


Atholl, Duchess of
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Munro, P.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Nall, Sir J.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. lisle of Thanet)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Goldie, N. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H,
Gower, Sir R. V.
Patrick, C. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Petherick, M.


Beechman, N. A.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bernays, R. H.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Blair, Sir R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Procter, Major H. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Radford. E. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Ramsbotham, H.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bull, B. B.
Guinness, T. L. E B.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Burghley, Lord
Hannah, I. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Butcher, H. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Butler, R. A.
Harbord, A.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Channon, H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Savery, Sir Servington


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Higgs, W. F.
Selley, H. R.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Spens. W. P.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Hutchinson, G. C.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cranborne, Viscount
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Storey, S.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Keeling, E. H.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. (N'thw'h)


Cross, R. H.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crossley, A C.
Latham, Sir P.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Crowder, J F. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Tate, Mavis C.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Dawson, Sir P.
Lewis, O.
Touche, G. C.


De Chair, S. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Turton, R. H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, K. M.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Cot. J. J
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O S.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Duggan, H. J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Eastwood, J. F.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McKie, J. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Emery, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Markham, S. F.



Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Marsden, Commander A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Errington, E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Mr. Raikes and Captain Macnamara.


Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."

Mr. Dunn: rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — DOGS ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Tuesday, 1st February.—[Sir R. Gower.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ROAD HAULIER'S LICENCE, LEICESTER.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Dugdale.]

11.10 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I should like to raise a matter which arises out of a question which I put to the Minister of Transport a few days ago respecting an application for an additional licence for a lorry, which was made originally in April, 1936. I should like at the outset to express my regret at the very curt way in which the Minister dealt with this question. It has been a subject of a considerable amount of comment from many hon. Members that he was extremely curt. Briefly, the facts are these. Application was made before the licensing authority in the East Midland area for a variation of licence, in April, 1936, 20 months ago. On 9th July of that year inquiry was instituted at Nottingham and ultimately adjourned. On 8th October the inquiry was continued at Leicester. On 20th October, 1936, the inquiry was resumed at Leicester and the application was refused. There was another case of an application to take over an existing "A" licence from a firm of hauliers in Leicester. That application was made in December, 1936, and heard at Nottingham on 4th February this year. Application was made to the licensing authority on the 3rd March, in respect of an additional vehicle. It is always the same case, which goes on continually. Finally, it came to appeal on 13th October of this year and the appeal was allowed on the 7th December last, a matter of 20 months since the first application was made.
The Appeal Tribunal spoke very clearly about the action of the licensing authority, and allowed costs amounting to £60, when they granted the appeal. It is obvious that those costs are of an unusual amount and show what the Appeal Tribunal thought of the licensing authority. The total legal charges in respect of that one 2½ ton lorry came to £322 17s. 10d. Deducting the £60, the amount is £262 17s. 10d., which is the figure given to me since I asked the question. These are very high legal charges in order to get one licence for a 2½ ton lorry. The Minister in his reply to-night may say that the lawyers managed to get too much. I agree. I consider that the solicitors were not doing their job properly, but the Law Society can deal with them. That is only part of the problem.
It is with the licensing authority that I wish to deal, that is, a Mr. Stirk. I consider that on the evidence the Minister should see that Mr. Stirk gets sacked, because he is not capable of carrying out his job. If the Minister says that he has not powers to deal with the licensing authority, then he must get powers, or this House must see to it that a licensing authority which cannot mete out justice and whose whole line of conduct was full of injustice must not be allowed to continue in that position. While I am on the question of the lawyers, it may be complained that the lawyers were poor, but I would point out that competent solicitors and counsel have very often refused to take any case in which they would have to appear before that man, because they know that justice will not be meted out by him as the licensing authority. This is not a question of being up against a licensing authority. It is not a question of 10, 20 or 50 complaints but it is a general series of complaints throughout the whole of that area. There is only one other area which has such a bad name as this area, and that is in East Yorkshire.
Mr. Stirk stated that he refused the application on all the grounds on which he was capable of refusing it. That is not the sort of language to use when you are acting in a judicial capacity and dealing with a judicial matter. I hope that the Minister will take these powers or that this House will exercise its authority and give the Minister power to deal with


a man like this, and get rid of an incompetent Traffic Commissioner. In his answer last week the Minister said:
I have received no recommendations from the Transport Advisory Council that Parliament should be asked to amend the provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. which relate to proceedings before the licensing authorities and the Appeal Tribunal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1937; col. 1164, Vol. 330.]
I am surprised to hear the Minister say that he is dependent on advice from outside sources before he can take action. If the Minister sees that action is necessary, surely he has not to wait for advice from outside sources. But apart from that, the report of the Traffic Advisory Council on Services and Rates implies that action has never been taken, and there is also an implied suggestion that the Minister should look into the matter and make some alteration in the method of granting licences. However to-night I wish to confine myself to this Traffic Commissioner and ask the Minister to see that this man is put somewhere else, and not continued in a Traffic Commissioner's job, because he is not capable of carrying it out.

Mr. Oliver: Will the hon. and gallant Member give us the evidence on which he attributes incompetence to the Traffic Commissioner, and also the evidence on which he attributes incompetence to those who acted on behalf of his client?

Colonel Sandeman Allen: The legal charges are sufficient evidence of the incompetence of the solicitors, and I understand that the Law Society has taken the matter up. On the other point, I suggest that the hon. Member should read the judgment of the Appeal Tribunal, because he will find that they turned down the Traffic Commissioner on every point and allowed the appeal. That shows that there is something very wrong. It is not only one but there are a multitude of complaints against this particular Traffic Commissioner. The high costs allowed by the Appeal Tribunal surely shows that they consider there is something wrong in the matter.

11.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): The House will realise that I am in some difficulty to-night because the hon. and gallant Member is criticising the

procedure of one of the licensing authorities or the Appeal Tribunal, or both, and these are bodies whose jurisdiction has been made entirely independent of the Minister of Transport or of the House, by Act of Parliament. I am sorry he has accused my right hon. Friend of rudeness. I am sure he never intended to be rude but he realised, as I realise, the difficulty of answering a supplementary question when the House has made these tribunals independent of its jurisdiction. The simple facts of the case are these. A haulier applied to the licensing authority for permission to use an additional vehicle. The licensing authority "exercised his discretion" as directed by the 1933 Act, and having heard all the evidence, refused the application. The haulier then exercised his right of appeal to the tribunal, which is also a body outside the jurisdiction of this House or the Minister, and the tribunal granted his appeal and gave him £60 costs. Obviously, in those circumstances, it would be highly improper for me to comment on these decisions of quasi-judicial authorities which are completely independent of my Ministry. Parliament has given my Minister the duty of appointing the licensing authorities and also the members of the appeal tribunal, and Parliament has also given him the power to remove any one of them for inability to perform his duties or for misbehaviour. It has given him no power of varying their decisions, and no duty of reviewing them.
As regards a possible amendment of the 1933 Act, I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend said, in reply to the question which has caused this discussion:
that he had received no recommendations from the Transport Advisory Council that Parliament should be asked to amend the provisions which relate to proceedings.
The point I would put to my hon. and gallant Friend is that the Minister has by Statute to consult the Transport Advisory Council in such matters, and that therefore he was perfectly right, in answering such a question, in saying that he had had no recommendation to that effect. I would remind the House that the Transport Advisory Council contains people who are in every form of transport, and who, if they felt that things were seriously wrong, would undoubtedly bring them forward and would advise the Minister. I do not find any great volume


of opinion in favour of the restriction of the independence of the licensing authority or of the tribunal. Independence may have its disadvantages, but I think the House will realise that it also has its advantages.
My hon. and gallant Friend also raised the question of costs. The appeal tribunal is empowered by Section 15 of the Act, to award to any party to an appeal such costs as the tribunal considers reasonable, and in this case, which as my hon. and gallant Friend has explained was a rather long-drawn-out case, they awarded £60. I would remind the House that if any person elects to appear in person before the licensing authority or before the tribunal, he may do so, but if, on the other hand, any person feels any doubt as to his ability to present his case, no one would wish to deprive him of his right to invoke the aid of the most skilled legal practitioner whose services he can command. But the House will realise that that is bound to add to his expenses.
I hope that from what I have said my hon. and gallant Friend will see how very strictly circumscribed our powers are in regard to this matter. He has said that there is a big volume of opinion in favour of amending the 1933 Act. I must say that that volume of opinion has not come my way. As it is, my hon. and gallant Friend is asking me to do something which this House has strictly put outside my powers. Therefore, although my answer must remain unsatisfactory to him, at the same time I do not see what else I can do, except to tell him that the Traffic Commissioners, in my opinion, do their work extremely well, and that unless we find that there is this volume of opinion is in the country, obviously it would be ridiculous in the short time since the passage of the 1933 Act to ask the House to take such action as that suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: Did I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he had powers, where there is misconduct on the part of a traffic commissioner in dealing with cases, to take action?

Captain Hudson: I said misconduct, and I think the House will understand what that means.

Mr. Speaker: I am not clear whether this Debate is in order at all, or not. Apparently, the hon. and gallant Member is asking the Minister to do something which he has no power to do, and the alternative is that he should amend the Act, a proposal which is quite out of order on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Captain Arthur Evans: On a point of Order. Am I not correct in saying that we understood from the Parliamentary Secretary that his right hon. Friend had power to consult the Traffic Advisory Council? I imagine from the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen) that his case would be partly met if the Minister took note of the evidence which has been submitted to the House to-night with a view to consulting the Transport Advisory Council to see what action, if any, can be taken.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will advise me on that point.

Captain Hudson: The Transport Advisory Council under the 1933 Act advises the Minister on matters concerning transport, and normally, with cases like this, they would have had it brought to their notice if there was any big volume of opinion that the Act should be amended in some way. All I have told the House is that we have had no communication from the Transport Advisory Council to that effect.

Mr. Petherick: On that point of Order. Is it not in order, if the Minister has power to remove an official for misconduct, which presumably does not only apply to misconduct in the financial sense, to raise it in this House?

Mr. Speaker: If it were a question of misconduct, it might be raised in this House, but I do not think this is a question of misconduct.

Mr. McGovern: Has the Minister any evidence of any volume of opinion against what are considered to be unfair decisions by this commission?

Captain Hudson: No.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.